Decision looms in Michael Mann / Tim Ball “hockey stick” lawsuit

After six years of tedious litigation, a court in Vancouver, British Columbia appears set to hand down a ruling involving one of the most controversial claims ever made in support of human-induced global warming.

The case pits two climatologists – Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Tim Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg – in a dispute rooted in data Mann used in creating his famous, or infamous, “hockey stick” graph. In 1999, Mann was the lead author of a paper that used an assortment of statistical techniques to reconstruct variations in atmospheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The graph made the Medieval Warm Period all but disappear and showed a sharp spike in temperatures at the end of the 20th century that resembled the blade of a hockey stick.

Mann was one of eight lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment published in 2001. A graph based on Mann’s work was highlighted throughout the IPCC report. It received widespread publicity and was touted by climate alarmists as further evidence of manmade global warming. Indeed, Mann’s hockey stick took on a life of its own and was repeatedly cited by the IPCC and numerous governments as justifying collective action to combat climate change. The hockey stick has also been cited in innumerable peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

“Secret Science”

Astounded by the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period — a time generally considered to have been warmer than the present — a growing chorus of critics demanded to see the underlying data on which the hockey-stick graph was based. Mann and his co-authors refused to release the data, even though their paper had been funded by U.S. taxpayers. The episode raised allegations that climate alarmists were engaging in “secret science.”

One of those critics was Tim Ball. In a 2011 interview, he quipped that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” Mann sued Ball for defamation in British Columbia under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism.

As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann.

Ball believes that Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data by the court-ordered deadline has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):

“We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Mann’s Suit Against Mark Steyn

Once the BC Supreme Court has ruled in his suit against Ball, Mann will have another legal battle on his hands. Mann filed a SLAPP lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against writer and commentator Mark Steyn after the latter wrote in a 2011 National Review Online article that Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Judith Curry, a recently retired climatologist at Georgia Tech, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae brief critical of Mann’s scientific methods.

For his part, Ball has produced his own graph showing temperature variability over the past 1,000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age can be seen on the graph. The graph also shows the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age, albeit to levels below what was experienced during the Medieval Warm Period. Unlike Mann, Ball has published the data on which his graph is based.

I really hope Mann loses both cases, his funding, his teaching position, his reputation, and all his friends …. and his dog. His perversion of the scientific is method requires nothing less than total intolerance.

CB – What we know for sure is that in an effort to force people to believe in AGW Dr. Mann declared both the Medieval Warming Period and the Maunder Minimum (the little ice age) as local events. These were not. Both have been plainly shown to have been world-wide events and caused not by some chaotic weather events but by output energy from the Sun.

You must understand that these are NOT actual events under discussion but computer models. These models are so bad that not only have they not predicted ONE correct even in the future since they were published but using them backwards they do not even predict what happened in the past. This is the sign of bad science – when your model doesn’t even match what occurred before the model was written.

I would like to ask you – what are your professional credentials to speak on this topic? I am not attempting to insult you. I have no educational credentials but I have 40 years of working directly in sciences that are all pertinent to the subject. I was chief engineer on a project that won the project leader a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I was the digital designer and programmer on another project that won our project leader two Emmy Awards and the company another. I have designed and programmed boards presently in use on the International Space Station. I designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. This means I understand spectometry.

One of the deepest problems is that the people most actively in the forefront of speaking of AGW are those who do not have any scientific credentials at all and “know” about it from a Popular Science article. As for your NASA “bible” – ALL of the science behind NASA has been due to manufactured temperature data. When you look into it they should be arrested and tried for misuse of governmental power.

As for your claims about “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century” – that is a complete and total lie. It is based on a paper written by Svante August Arrhenius around 1896. Exactly what would you know about it since it was written in German? He simple PROPOSED a connection between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and Ice Ages. That has been shown to be totally incorrect since we have had and Ice Age with levels of CO2 of 10%. At the start of the last Ice Age which we are still in the levels were 1%. Arrhenius performed NO experiments. As he said, he had no money nor equipment to do so and instead used data from a paper about the color of moonlight to propose this theory. While he was a competent scientist he was wrong about CO2. And most experiments since his time showed that.

There IS a connection between temperature and levels of CO2 but CO2 is washed out of the oceans as the water temperature rises and CO2 increases follows the temperature rises by 800 years.

Almost NO scientists believe AGW to be true or that there is insufficient data to make such a claim. Who does NASA use as part of their 97%? The American Medical Association and the Boy Scouts of America! Now there is real scientific agreement there.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are based on the “science” from 2500 “scientists”. However – most of that 2500 are not scientists but are politicians grasping for money and power. And the real scientists are relying heavily on the manufactured temperature information distributed by NASA. So even the most honest scientists in the world cannot produce good work using false data.

As you say – What besides mental illness might explain people who “don’t” understand it?

By the way – I might add about Arrhenius – the title of his paper is: “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid on the Temperature of the Ground” – do you understand that? “OF THE GROUND”. This was not about atmospheric heating at all. And in case you are unaware if it “carbonic acid” is an old scientific name for carbon dioxide.

CB – I was trying to make the point that Arrhenius was attempting to explain ice ages and not the temperature of the atmosphere. The method he used could not correct for humidity and so his numbers are questionable. I would have to run them and that’s too much work since what people claim he said and what he actually said are sometimes completely opposite.

NASA’s temperature charts are extremely unreliable. They have changed their raw data on three occasions and the reasons they did it were not an acceptable means:

Note that this is a mathematical study of the changes and it shows that no corrections could have occurred in this manner. The peer reviewers are far more than technically competent including past managers from the EPA and a Fulbright Scholar who is more than familiar with statistical analysis.

Dr. Roy Spencer was the leader of the NASA weather satellite program and he has published the actual temperature data from those satellites:

To the uninformed this looks like there is a little warming over the last 38 years but there are only two points that are higher than normal variations and that is 3/4ths of 1998 and a hot summer in 2015. This can easily be assigned to chaotic weather patterns. The AVERAGE temperature since 1979 is zero change.

My, my. Do we not read? Mann was asked multiple times to share his data and analysis code to validate his research. He declined to share. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.

M&M demolished Mann’s statistical analysis anyway via reverse engineering. That he did not acknowledge their valid conclusions is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Mann’s tree-ring data showed a temp decline after 1960. Not the result he wanted. So he truncated the declining data and concatenated temp sensor data, which showed the rising temp he desired. He published this WITHOUT noting what he had done. THIS is the antithesis of the scientific method.

To top it off, the IPCC no longer includes the hockey stick graph in its documents.

“…We got another moron here…”
There’s another explanation:
I’ve just realised, after much wondering about the attitude, stance and argumentative approach, that Ian5 is probably none other than Michael Mann himself…!

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Instead of citing extreme conspiracy rubbish from Heller and other disinformation websites, why not inform yourself on the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

No it is not peer-reviewed, published research, and no it does not demonstrate that NASA doctored their data. All you’ve provided is a single link to an unpublished paper written by well known contrarians, posted to the silly, amateurish ‘tropical hot spot research’ website. You are misinformed.

As Twain said, “better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

UV won the right to prevent releasing alarmist Mann’s data and emails. Aparently, UV had no problem giving up the same info of skeptic Patrick Michaels. The hypocrisy could not be more telling.

Then there’s alarmist Mann’s libel trial against skeptic Dr. Tim Ball. Mann has now been declared in contempt of court for not turning over requested info. And we all know why. Mann’s work is flawed. And turning over his data and emails would make that all too clear.

Best move to the shallow end of the intellectual pool. You’re in way over your head.

NO MICHAELS RESEARCH….NO VIRGINIA ADDRESS..
what the hell are you talking about???
.
Mann’s court suit has had NO CONCLUSIONS,

THERE has been NO contempt citation

…once you realize that in Canada
…the Government is championing Mann’s case
…to gain that status, all disclosures were made BEFORE the case could ever get to court.

.
“….No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential,
that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

“Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

“Just to be clear:
Mann is not defying any judge.
He is not in breach of any judgment.
He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball….”

2 separate suits filed by the Republican Attorney General of Virginia was laughed out of court
.
BECAUSE he had NO foundation to challenge the validity of Mann’s MASSIVE RESEARCH at several institutes.
.
.let alone attempt to gain ALL of his computers and his e-mails and written letters to ANYONE in the science field
…and

BECAUSE ALL of his research was already published, in PEER REVIEW and REPLICATED 36 separate times.
…
I cannot find ANY record of Patrick Michaels doing any research ! ? !

AND WHAT COURT SUIT…..?

…”….But Michaels’ credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has Major financial ties to big energy interests
—ties that he’s worked hard to keep secret.

Here’s the back story:
Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been introduced in many states.

In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont.

The auto industry’s lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.

But it soon became clear that lawyers defending Vermont’s law were going to ask Michaels about the clients of his “advocacy science consulting firm,” New Hope Environmental Services.

Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter.

The judge disagreed,

and ruled that Michaels’ clients were a “viable area of cross examination.” “I understand that maybe it’s a little embarrassing,” said Judge William K. Sessions III. “[But] it’s not highly confidential information.”

In a rare move, the auto dealers pulled Michaels off their witness list.

**********
Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” and “individual supporter” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organisation

CREATED & FUNDED

by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation. [10]

Michaels was also an “Academic Member” of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF),

another group CREATED by the tobacco industry to frame legitimate science as “junk science” on matters pertaining to health and environment, particularly secondhand smoke health impacts.

Michaels was listed as an academic member on the ESEF’s March 1998 working paper titled “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Revisited: The reliability of the evidence for risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.” [11]

Fossil Fuel Funding

Patrick Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [12]

If you are ignorant of Greenpeace’s FOIA request to UV regarding info on Dr. Michaels (which was granted) and Chris Horner’s similar FOIA request regarding info on Dr. Mann (which was denied), you cannot be helped. The issue here is UV’s double-standard in executing FOIA requests.

And if you’re attempting to argue that Michaels is corrupt for being partially funded by the fossil fuel industry while ignoring that Mann is pure even though he is totally funded by sources that expect research results with a alarmist conclusion, then you are a special kind of fool.

That Suit … Green Peace V. Michaels … was a brewing political suit….Michaels made MANY derogatory statements about Green Peace…..
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RESEARCH Michaels was involved with.
.
.
“https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/dr-patrick-moore-was-right-greenpeace-is-full-of-shit/

Mar 3, 2017 – Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, whom they have tried to erase from their website, resigned from… … Greenpeace claims it cannot be sued because its misleading claims were not meant to be factual

Next you will be challenging by qualifications to read and study Scientific studies or their abstracts as I have done for 50 years.
….simply because you do not like the fact that in ANY given week….there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies, published and replicated in support of the ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT leading to THREATENING CLIMATE CHANGES.
…and VERY, VERY FEW with credible science in opposition.

TRUMP
“Steele used his contacts in Russia to put together a dossier that describes efforts by Russian President Vladimir Putin to cultivate a relationship with Trump and his entourage and to gather material that could be used to blackmail the candidate if necessary. Steele did not pay sources for information.

The dossier contains salacious allegations that NPR has not detailed because they remain unverified, but an unexpurgated copy of the document was posted by BuzzFeed last January and circulated widely. One important aspect of the story is that the material in the file, if accurate, might have exposed Trump to potential blackmail.
Months before, during the presidential campaign, information gathered by Fusion GPS was passed to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Trump and GOP lawmakers have sought to portray the 35-page dossier as outrageous and false. They’ve drawn attention to the fact that much of it is unproven. By impeaching the dossier, they have tried to impeach the basic case that people in the Trump orbit may have coordinated with the Russians who attacked the election.
Trump allies also have used the dossier to go on offense against the FBI and the Justice Department, charging that “biased” federal investigators used what Republicans call partisan, Democratic-funded propaganda as the basis for the whole Russia investigation.

The case for collusion, however, goes beyond the dossier and includes outreach by Russian agents to the Trump campaign and meetings between Trump associates and Russians.
In fact, in their op-ed, Simpson and Fritsch wrote that congressional committees have “known for months” of credible allegations of collusion but have chosen instead to “chase rabbits.”
“We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.”
“[We] found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering,” the two wrote.

The FOIA suit against man was not ‘regarding info on Dr. Mann’….it was a demanded for all of his research, much of which was conducted privately at HIS lab not at the UV,
and that Suit was BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING OR FRAUDULENT RESEARCH….but it was based upon the Political / Ideological beliefs of the plaintiffs !

For Example….I believe you rape and beat your wife, therefor
I want to install cameras at you home and every restaurant you visit to prove it.

Obfuscation. The alarmist’s escape path. It doesn’t matter why an FOIA request is generated. Mann’s UV research was paid for, in part or in full, by taxpayer dollars. That means ANY public request for the work generated by those dollars should be reviewable by the public. There need not be evidence of wrong doing. THAT is a no brainer. If you don’t belueve that, then you must also believe routine audits are worthless exercises. Please, try to argue that.

And your analogy should have been more like, I paid you to inspect and repair my car. I want you to show me any/all parts you replaced and any printouts of tests performed. There, fixed it for ya.

NO obfuscation what so ever.
ALL of the Research, as mandated, by the UV.
..was PEER Reviewed
(true red team / blue team critical review)
..was PUBLISHED in Respected world Scientific Journals for wide spread critical review…and was REPEATEDLY
REPLICATED….
.
THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL tried twice, to the tune of millions of tax payers dollars, to attack MANN’s
Research and Methods….and was SOUNDLY DEFEATED
TWICE..
primarily because HE HAD NO BASIS IN FACT to challenge.
The decision was quickly determined once the PUBLISHED WORKS WERE SHOWN TO THE JUDGE !
IN paper form and on the web.

Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie
(who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan
in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere,
plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his
disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential,
that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear:
Mann is not defying any judge.
He is not in breach of any judgment.
He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball
“is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger
mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence,
he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court
to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud,
or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences
is that the words he spoke about Mann
(which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether
or not climate change is real.

So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims
against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Ball does not need to prove that Mann’s work is flawed. That has already been done. The hockey stick graph has been removed from all IPCC releases. That should have been proof to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Mann asked for an adjournment last Feb. Canadian courts almost always grant these as they are normally preludes to out of court settlements. But such adjournments need to be approved by both sides. Ball’s team agreed to the adjournment with the stipulation that Mann made his research docs available to the court by a certain date. Mann did not live up to the terms of the adjournment. If Mann has not been cited, it is because (as you noted) that the court is biased in his favor. No surprise there. And there is only one reason for Mann to deny releasing his research. It would prove what other analyses have already concluded, that Mann’s research is indeed flawed.

Normally, when one is in a losing position, one stops digging. As with most zealous alarmists, though, you simply grab a bigger shovel. Typical.

YOU SAY:
“Ball does not need to prove that Mann’s work is flawed. That has already been done. The hockey stick graph has been removed from all IPCC releases.”

FACTS:
Your comment is a work of FICTION. IPCC NEVER removed Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph, nor has it been DEBUNKED.
There is NEW and MORE COMPLETE studies to reference and they have enhanced the Hockey Stick Graph…rather than ‘debunk’.
Look:http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

YOU SAY:
“…Mann did not live up to the terms of the adjournment. If Mann has not been cited, it is because (as you noted) that the court is biased in his favor. No surprise there.”

FACTS:
I never said the court was biased in MANN’S favor…In Canada these cases are presented to the court initially…the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a claim of defamation against BALL
… and the COURT TOOK the case against BALL
……and prosecutes the case against BALL.

SILLY PERSON….Dr. Mann’s research was critically peer reviewed, then Published in a respected Scientific Journal,
it has been replicated and ENHANCED.

Pitiful how deluded and OUT OF DATE you are.
***
***
Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie
(who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com
and elsewhere,
plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his
disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear:
(1.)
Mann is not defying any judge.
(2.)
He is not in breach of any judgment.
(3.)
He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
(4.)
He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context,
O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
**
*
(( VANCOUVER News Papers have confirmed that NO ‘PUNITIVE COURT SANCTIONS’ have been sought ))
**
*
Finally,
a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence,
he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences
is that the words he spoke about Mann
(which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit)
were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

THEY are defining GLACIAL EVENTS
….they do not redefine or undermine the above Holocene INTER GLACIAL WARM PERIOD, Its PEAK TEMPERATURES 8000-9000 years ago,
its STEADY DECLINE in temperatures toward the NEXTGLACIATION
and its ALARMINGLY SUDDEN termination in the mid to late 1700’s,
Despite the CONTUATION of the CAUSES of Glaciations on Earth….
Earth’s orbit pulling the planet away from the sun _Which continues !
Earth’s axial Tilt away from the sun____________ Which continues !
Earth’s wobble away from the sun _____________ Which continues !

The Stunning Termination of Earth’s most POWERFUL NATURAL CYCLE … GLACIATIONS…. in the mid 1700’s

We as US taxpayers should SLAPP Michael Mann for withholding OUR intellectual property. We paid for it, it is our data, not his.
Mann filed his SLAPP lawsuit against Mark Steyn? Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.
I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data (Mann ignored both in developing taxpayer’s ‘hockey stick’).

Think about it a little…comparing Ball to Eisenhower is an empty comparison…comical really. Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature. He hasn’t published anything in years. Why should he be considered an authority on the current state of climate science?

Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying. As a matter of fact, it frees them from the pressures put on them by managers, peers, and grant orgs.

“Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying“.

>> Of course it doesn`t. Neither does it negate the conclusions of the the scientific literature on climate change that have accumulated over the past 25 years, the vast majority of which continues to reinforce that GHGs from human activity are warming the planet`s climate system; the evidence is unequivocal. Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Misleading statement. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence studied by thousands of scientists from many jurisdictions and agencies around the world that indicate that global warming is unequivocal.

‘Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature’… YOU’VE lost the plot here. Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see. He makes NO predictions using modelling techniques he keeps secret. You ABSOLUTELY cannot make those claims for Mann.. If Clausius stepped out of his grave today, knowing nothing of the invented ‘science’ called ‘climate science’, he could destroy Mann’s house of cards in 5 minutes. The Laws of Physics completely refute the bedrock claims that underpin the entire shambolic structure called ‘climate science’.

“Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see.“

A little rich don`t you think? Moreover Dr. Ball`s positions on climate science and those of the silly “Friends of Science“ are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

Yet these they reflect the findings of scientists from a range of different disciplines, from multiple countries and jurisdictions, and government and non-government sectors. Conspiracies are the stuff of Alex Jones and other extremists.

This is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a scientific discourse. There are deep, fundamental flaws in the global warming agenda. The conspiracy is in fact the other way round, there is a conspiracy to deny any opposition to the agenda – see Climategate emails where this is spelled out clearly – see UN statements that ‘unless we show disasters, nobody will listen to us’.

You need to look at the facts, not the purveyors you mention. Don’t forget, Galileo was opposed by every single institution yet he was right. The Earth DOES go round the Sun: his DATA proved it. All the bodies you mention take it as fact that the data they obtain from Goddard and Hadley/CRU (the only 2 sources they all use as source data) is correct and they put that into their models. But.. the data has been fiddled to remove past warming events, thus making any current warming – however small – appear disproportionately large. This fundamental problem is then exacerbated by hopelessly biased model which are designed to produce apocalyptic warming 100 years hence, even though they are universally unable to reproduce reality… run ANY model using the start data of, say, 10 years ago and compare the output month by month to what we know ACTUALLY happened and you will see they all fail spectacularly. The reason they do this: they are ALL feeding at the grants/subsidies trough and need to show future disasters or all their funding will disappear. Ball and others simply point out all the discrepancies in the data, the fallacy that the models are reliable, and the problems with the basic laws of physics arising from the theory that man-made CO2 has led to significant temperature rises which will only get worse: there is no scientific basis for this claim, it is just a politically expedient claim that generates huge funding for any body willing to take the shilling. Read sepp.org and wattsupwiththat.com for detailed analysis of all this. We’re not making this up!

Your response displays profound ignorance on a world class gold medal level. Are you totally unaware that the initial claim of a ‘97% consensus in favour of man-made global warming’ is itself an utterly discredited claim? This has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that it is remarkable it keeps getting trotted out. Given that the 97% figure is complete bunk, why would anyone bother to comment on the remaining 3%? It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer doesn’t matter because there are no angels.

You don’t seem to get the basic point about Galileo, which is as relevant today as it was when he was first condemned for his data. It is this: consensus is not a valid concept in proper science for deciding the validity of any particular proposition. What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us. There are far more important issues on which to spend our money.

“What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw
unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us.”

Please do explain your logical theory and provide the data that supports it. I’m all ears.

You want me to provide a theory for something that isn’t happening? This is not how it works.

As an example, there’s also no theory for why you can’t observe angels dancing on the head of a pin. (hint: There is definitely a pin, but there are no angels.)

If you do want to study the science seriously, a good place to start would be Professor Fred Singer’s book ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years’. It’s a rattling good read.

The central point is there is no reliable data to show temperature excursions are abnormal, therefore there is no issue. You don’t need a theory for this. It’s how things are.

The only abnormal excursions are either the result of fiddled data (for example the farcical Mann hockey stick), OR cherry picked data from locations that will inevitably show temperature rises (such as those close to towns) OR the projections from innumerable climate models, all of which fail the most basic credibility test: start each model one year in the past and run them against the actual data which was measured over the year. They all fail to track reality reliably. You shouldn’t be surprised at this: climate is an enormously complex system which we hardly understand at all.

‘Climate alarmism’ isn’t a science-based phenomenon, it is driven by political and social agendas, by people who want to create a new economic system and redistribute wealth to the second and third worlds. There’s nothing wrong with having such ambitions. Maybe capitalism is indeed crap and has failed the poor. Just don’t cloak the argument with fake science. If the agenda makes sense it will stand on its own feet.

Of course all those currently feeding at the deep troughs of money that is funding ‘climate research’ will lose their golden eggs, but there are plenty of far more useful things for society to spend its money on. I could do with a new car, as one example.

I can’t help but notice your avatar is a bloodsucking mosquito. It seems somehow appropriate.

The sad thing from society’s viewpoint is that it is zealots such as yourself who have so far allowed to be wasted hundreds of billions of our precious taxpayer money on a madcap theory of man-made global warming which is devoid of rationality. Bloodsucking indeed.

Your certainty makes one think of religious zealotry, and in this case it is equally unfounded in logic, scientific rigour and an appreciation of irony.

The simple, inescapable fact is the ONLY significant increase in global temperatures outside the bounds of natural variability is the result of models which are preposterously inadequate, or of cherry picked data, or of faulty statistical forecasting. Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.

“Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.”

Not if you care about scientific accuracy. As the wiki on this very dataset points out:

“Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”

Arguments from authority are worthless. If you have the necessary facts and data to prove a hypothesis, you win. If not, you lose. Mann has neither of those things on his side and he has demonstrated his contempt for the scientific process (and his legitimate critics) by refusing to release his data.

What “recent peer reviewed paper” would that be? Surely you don’t mean the PDF of D’Aleo’s WordPress blog post that Breitbart’s Delingpole and other misinformers have been promoting as peer-reviewed science? Not peer-reviewed, nor does it “prove” anything.

“NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union”. Each and every one a politically driven organization whose “data” has been soundly refuted time and again by real scientists.

Wow. You really are drunk with blindness and you just don’t care about losing the wealth that you’ve established in your life or your family’s wealth because you will lose it if you continue to go along with this hoax. These government agencies have come out in the last 10 to 15 years with Data that was misrepresented in underminded the actual study of global warming because there was zero global warming and it was global cooling. If you use half of the temperature gage is around the world and warmer climate you can make anything look like it’s heating up around the world. But if you use the average of all the temperature gauges around the world we have been cooling not warming.

You will just believe anything won’t you? The New York Times ha ha they are the biggest piece of crap lying newspaper. Have you ever heard of the New World Order or the Bilderberg Group? Have you read Agenda 21? I feel sorry for people like you that actually believe in Al Gore’s global warming theory. It is a theory and that is all it is just like the big bang theory. I have a question for you how long have we been taking temperature readings around the planet?

Apparently you’ve never been in the library before or open up a search engine and look for these topics because they do exist. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories because it is all facts not fiction. Your ignorance is bliss.

The three research papers that debunk your false narrative were true because you had them removed from this site. Apparently your to young and your wheel house has zero knowledge of the New World Order, George Soros, the Bilderberg Group. Agenda 21 and so on.

Still blinded by all those government agencies I wonder why because you think government agencies have the end-all and be-all of everything and they are just the fact finding people of the world and they are gods because when they say something it’s the God honest truth. BS they are bought and paid for by governments around the world to continue the hoax of global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. This government tax is to steal wealth from every nation so that the billionaire elites can line there pockets such as George Soros the face end up at master of the New World order.

I’ve had a couple of conversations with Ball. He has seen enough climate change and studied enough history to know that climate change, sometimes catastrophic, has always been a feature of life on this planet. He has absolutely nothing to gain by questioning the alarmism.

Nope. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that you should think twice before blindly trusting people – particularly political pundits – on scientific matters when they have no scientific credentials whatsoever.

But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything he said? And trusting people, just because they have certain credentials, is a recipe for disaster. The DATA, not a reputation, not credentials, are what matters. This observation somehow slipped by you.

“But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything [Mark Steyn] said?“

>> Then you`d be in the company of a small handful of well-known contrarions with extreme views and be supporting a position that is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

That Hockey stick was discredited long ago, 2002 or 03, by Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick DR, Richard Muller, a professor of physics at University of California at Berkeley, He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. wrote an article about it, and he is a believer in human induced climate change. below are parts of it

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

A small handful? Are you frigging retarded? How about 31,247 American scientists who are quite open about their disbelief and signed onto the NPCC report? How about the 65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support that idiot mann? How about all of the scientists who have testified before congress clearly stating , and backing up with data, that ACC is a scam? You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON

And “well-known contrarians with extreme views” is not name-calling? How about the grotesque Holocaust smear (“deniers”) so many of your climate change pals are so fond of hurling at scientists who disagree with your dogma? Have a look in the mirror, pal.

This website has nothing to do with the infowars this website is called CFACT. Ian I feel sorry for people like you so gullible. Ask Al gore how much he’s making on the hoax of global warming, carbon omissions and climate change? Have you notice how big his house is and how big his jet is that he flies around the world? Follow the money Ian. I am not suggesting that we do not become good stewards of our environment, of our relationships between human beings and our stewardships of life. But what I am suggesting is that this money making system for the billionaire elites that run the world such as George Soros a.k.a. puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order.

By the way I wasn’t name-calling I asked Tecca question and he couldn’t answer my questions. Because he’s not honest about his knowledge base. And you’re the propagandist my friend not me. You’re the one it’s poorly educated not me and I don’t feel inadequate it all I feel just fine thank you very much. I feel sorry for people that actually believe in gores BS hooks on global warming him, climate change and or carbon emissions.

>> Do you mean the Heartland Institute’s ridiculous NIPCC report? Heartland Institute…not a scientific organization. Lobbyist for the tobacco industry…. Its report does not even purport to summarize the scientific literature. Why would you believe such rubbish.

“65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support [Mann]”

>> Hopeless rubbish, you just made that up.

“You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON”

>> Name-calling is a strategy typical of propagandists, bullies and the poorly educated.

Nasa believed that there were canals on Mars, until 1998. The canals were first proposed in 1789. before 1950 there was a cosensus that Martians were trying to signal earth. Experts, what does tht even mean.
(93) Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity – YouTube

Provides link to silly video posted by well-known misinformer Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). He has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Why do you think he is credible? Would you trust your heart condition to a plumber?

Deflection…the article isn’t about Al Gore. You pointed to Heller’s silly rubbish and I’m calling you on it. Heller’s views are extreme and diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

All those government organizations are given taxpayer money to continue the hoax of Al gores global warming. You can’t even think for a second outside the box that these organizations actually could be taking money and promoting an absolute hoax? Of course not because you’re so ignorant, uneducated and uninformed .

>> Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
You can’t refute any of it.

NASA is bought and paid for by government a.k.a. taxpayers money. Can refute all of it because it’s all lies and you want to talk about misleading that you. I will bet you could not be fair minded and actually look and research and study and find out that this whole thing that Gore has started is one big HOAX. Why don’t you follow the money that is made and ask yourself how? Why? Who?

NASA, NOAA, British astronomy data center, Environmental Canada, IPCC and other government agencies are bought and paid for with taxpayers money to do exactly what the New World Order tells them to do. George Soros the puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order tells them exactly how to tax everybody around the world to steal the wealth of the world because they don’t have enough money already.

Your ridiculous and you need to stop your ignorance and being so uneducated that you believe everything that you hear from the IPCC and every other government organization that’s full of crap. You’re so ignorant and you’re so blinded that you’d rather be taxed of all your wealth then realize that they’re playing an absolute hoax and lies with regards to global warming, climate change and carbon emissions.

Incorrect talking point. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

Just because Ian says so that’s what we’re supposed to believe try again Ian. Your ignorance is so bliss that most people on this website don’t even listen to what you’re saying because you’re a fool and your arrogant and ignorant.

It is well known that the leadership within these orgs is dominated by progressives. That missives from these orgs (generated ONLY by those leaders) is pro-alarmist is not surprising. The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50. I imagine every other org shuddered and prevented such votes from being taken. So much for your appeal to authority. A tactic of losers.

“The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50.”

>> No, your ridiculous statement is a complete myth. The last survey of the American Meteorological Society was conducted in 2016. The survey concluded that “Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change – as defined by AMS – is happening, with almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.”https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

Wow. So we’re supposed to put a lot of faith in a poll where less than a third of the members responded, was performed by an institution well known for its alarmist leanings, and did not guarantee the anonymity of responders. Right, like that’s going to produce believable results.

Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a stronger greenhouse effect that is warming the planet.

You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. Your graph is meaningless. Why not take your head out of the sand and realize that you don’t have a clue? I have offered a link to an atmospheric physicist that shows what you believe is bogus. What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?

“You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. ”

>> Your statement is false. The Keeling curve presents direct evidence of rising atmospheric CO2; measurements have been taken continuously since 1958. You cannot refute it.

Ed Berry’s views on climate change are extreme…it is not his research area and besides he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science since the 1980s as he freely admits: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/publications/ . There is ideology not science all over his website.

You haven’t refuted Ed berry’s views. All you have done is regurgitated garbage from Patrick Moore. What kind of expert is he? Ed Berry addresses every one of his criticisms and Moore can’t refute it. You’ve been to his site and YOU can’t refute Dr. Berry. He simply doesn’t align with your naive understanding of climate science. He uses the scientific method. You and your ilk don’t. It IS that simple!

This is the problem of trying to persuade a scientific ignoramus, using logic and facts – his brain is so full of indoctrinated rubbish that there’s no space for facts. Or even for doubt.
Like you, I’ve offered easily-understood evidence, but he keeps bouncing back with comments about absent credentials… Weirdly (or perhaps not) he sees no irony in accepting AlGore’s nonsense, despite his clear “lack of credentials”.

I know he can’t be persuaded to reason honestly; and I’m not trying to convince him… The only reason I bother to respond is for the others who might be reading these comments. I hope that some percentage of readers take the trouble to do a bit of research of their own, rather than accept the current narrative that we’re all ‘climate sinners’ and deserve to die because we’re “polluting” our atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
They will ignore the hugely beneficial effects of higher CO2 levels… the widespread rebound in plant growth everywhere, as we emerge from the CO2 famine of the last thousand years.

The loony Warmists haven’t the capacity to understand that CO2 can only be considered a pollutant when water vapour is considered the same way.

Another link to disinformation professional Steve Goddard (his real name is Tony Heller), Steve and Tony have no climate science credentials whatsoever. He hasn’t published a single journal article, not one.

Why is it bullshit? It is the well-known Keeling curve — direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 that have been taken uninterrupted since the late 50s. The graph you provided reflect CO2 levels derived from ice-core data — the graph does not include increases from the past century. The two are entirely consistent. Have a look a these graphs that put the two series together over a range of timescales:https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

The planet does what it does and we are not the cause and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
What is your solution?
Kill off all humans?
You are a dumbass if you think there is anything we can do about it.

True, but irrelevant to the fact that we continue to annually take millions of tons of carbon sequestered deep in the earth and inject it into the active biological carbon cycle. The Earth will survive our arrogant and ignorant tampering.

What a load of crap.You are just regurgitated and repeating nonsense you heard through the propaganda machine.
You sound like all the other climate alarmists.You all sound like brainwashed parrots.
We can’t predict the future so there is no way we can stop the countless amounts of NATURAL disasters that can happen.All we can do is deal with them when they happen.Like we are doing with hurricane Harvey now.
If you think we should put all our resources into stopping CO2 which is NOT A POLLUTANT and then all will be fine for our grandchildren,then you are truly an idiot.
There are always dangers in our world and CO2 certainly isn’t one of them.

You linked to one dubious chart and posted another. The timelines of each are generally unrelated, and the datasets used to compile them are not provided and the claimed sources are at best vaguely referenced.

Every chart you don’t like is ‘far from science”.
Then you send me an article from Reuters.LOL Leftist garbage.
Those charts that I posted are right from NOAA.
You don’t even understand how real science works.
Here is how.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8MWqemXoAEwrpq.jpg

There is no cited dataset from NOAA, only the claim. The chart is the author’s, not linked to NOAA.

The same is true of the 2nd chart. He claims the data is from Munich/RE, but does not specify any study or publicly-accessible record. The link provided under references is to a press release that does not contain the chart nor any reference to the data attributed, an article entitled: Natural catastrophe review for the first half of 2017

During my time in university, such sloppiness earned students a failing grade. How does Professor Pielke keep his job?

“…the author is commenting on a topic in which he has no credentials…”

This is a repetitious mantra of yours.

One doesn’t need “qualifications” in climate science to recognise fraud when it’s there… and it’s there “in spades”.

But calling Anthony Watts ‘unqualified in climate science’ exposes you as someone who’s not done the same level of research which you so demand of others on this list…

By your “strict” standards, Al Gore’s two docudramas and many, many public scarefests should be irrelevant (as indeed they are) because, as a person with “no credentials in the topic”, he’s not qualified to have- or voice an opinion.
We don’t see your condemnation of this well-known fraudster and public-funds thief. Why are you so openly selective, if you expect anyone to take you seriously?

AlGore’s multiple weather-specific (i.e. scientific) errors in the first glossy book were at least a source of much eye-watering mirth to all who understand the science, although concerned readers have a more serious reason to cry over his book’s wide, uncritical acceptance by scientifically-ignorant school boards. Luckily, in the UK (where some level of reason and honesty still exists), his book was strongly denounced by a court, due to it’s serious errors, mis-statements and fraudulent scare-tactics.
But those who believe the AGW nonsense are unfazed by this criticism, because, like AlGore himself, they are unhindered by the strict principles of the scientific method; and the concept of conscience and ethics is as foreign as scientific the understanding which they not only lack – but about which they (and you, seemingly) are totally incurious…

Rather than denounce (as you predictably do) people like Anthony Watts and Tony Heller (and Will Happer) as ‘disinformation brokers’, you should first try to understand what they are saying.
I know this is difficult for you, but if you start from scratch and learn some physics, biology, chemistry and maths (and statistics), you’ll become entranced at the amount of wondrous information and knowledge there is in even a rudimentary understanding of how the universe works.
And, armed with this new knowledge and understanding, you might well be a bit embarrassed at your (past) naïvety and acceptance of nonsense, dished up as fact.
The past is nothing to be ashamed-of, if the sense of shame comes from new knowledge, which exposes the naïvety.

“…naïvety and acceptance of nonsense”….”One doesn’t need “qualifications” in climate science to recognise fraud when it’s there… and it’s there “in spades”.

>> Yet you haven’t provided any evidence, just links to a few silly and well-known disinformation sites. The scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is unequivocal. It’s a position shard by virtually every American and international scientific institution and academy. Who have you got? heartland institute?

There is scientific data that disputes your claim. Getting the whole picture is better than half. Water vapor contributes to the green house effect. CO2 is not the only cause. Facts are stubborn, I agree.

Inasmuch as you don’t have any real knowledge in the science of climatology I suggest you simply don’t try to say that you haven’t seen any contraindications of anything other than your own intelligence.

CO2 is a trace gas that has virtually no effect. There is 100 times the H2O in the atmosphere ON THE AVERAGE. Around cities where most of the CO2 is generated we discover that it is ten times that because cities HAVE to have water and hence are built on major waterways, large lakes or oceans.

Sorry Ian that’s garbage. Nasa has been caught fudging the numbers so their credibility is zero. You didn’t know that because you only get your info from “approved” religious sources.
Plants thrive in 1000 PPM conditions and they could not have got there if the world did not have those conditions in the past.
Nay sayers to this concept are not scientists but shills. The evidence of greening the world is overwhelming while the evidence of a rise of 2 degrees C is sketchy at best.
I’ll go with the plants, not the political scientists who shill this garbage for grants and gov. salaries.
You think the oil companies are bad for funding scientists? How about the “pure as the driven snow” gov. scientists, greens, globalists, wind power executives, Musk etc. No conflict of interest with those sods is there?

“Nasa has been caught fudging the numbers so their credibility is zero.”

>> According to who? This is a silly talking point promoted by disinformation professionals. You can’t provide a single scrap of evidence that NASA is ‘fudging the numbers’.

” Plants thrive in 1000 PPM conditions and they could not have got there if the world did not have those conditions in the past.”

>> The climate, ecology and biology of the planet was much different then. The current level of atmospheric CO2 (over 400 ppm) hasn’t been a feature of our planet for at least 800,000 years long before human civilization began to develop.

Yes, 400 PPM so what? And how do you know what it was in the past? When did accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 begin, indeed, they are not that accurate now. We’re talking sterile lab quality work. Remember this is Parts per million, and it is measure on in a couple of places on earth.
Further, you have no idea what the “normal” atmospheric CO2 is supposed to be any more than you know what the average world temperature is supposed to be. The earth is not and never has been in stasis.
Nasa and other groups have consistently juggled previous temperature down and current temperatures up. Again, 1/10 of one degree C is not even measurable outside a lab. This is average and rounding numbers from various sources. The land based temp. do not coincide with the satellite temps.
You last points are garbage. You have no idea what a million years of climate has been. Dendrology and Ice Cores, and other proxies are not that accurate, which is what the Mann argument is all about.
Your entire premise is contradicted by history. There is the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Egyptian warm period etc. There were also mini ice ages.
We have mega proof of that with painting of the Thames river frozen over etc.
Mann’s science is garbage and global warming, which isn’t happening, is a construct of the left in an attempt to tax the first world nations for wealth redistribution to third world nations. Actually, tax wealthy nations so the cronies, cadres and elites can sponge off everyone else
This scam is a religion and you sir, are an acolyte, a disciple.
Me, I believe in plants, not lab coats on a mission to find more grants or promote an ideology.

So what! CO2 is not and will not be the only cause or effect of your so called climate change, carbon emissions and global warming. If this planet, earth, does not have enough CO2 plant, plankton and alge along with animals, mammals and humanity will die.

CO2 does not and is not the single most effects on your so called climate change. Also if the earth doesn’t have enough CO2 plants on land and plankton and alge in the ocean along with animals, mammals and humans will die.

The increase in CO2 is a measured fact. The supposed results of that increase are pure unadulterated BS. Nothing but good has come from the increases in CO2. And NO negatives are attached to it. The one line of absorption not totally covered by atmospheric water was saturated at about 300 ppm. No additional CO2 would find any energy to absorb.

Definitely not; you just made that uo. The point that was being made up-thread is that the extreme positions of commentators like Tony Heller and Mark Steyn should be given little to no weight in discussions about climate science. Neither has any climate science credentials whatsoever.

So, you’re reaffirming my suggestion that you accept the tenets of the priests in the lab coats that spew your dogma and discredit anyone else.
Thanks for restating the point that you live in a world of group speak where differing ideas and opinions are not welcome.
The construct where your lab coated priests are the only ones that are allowed to interpret your bible and your revelations come from people like Michael Mann who was caught outright lying and cheating on facts. Perhaps the climategate emails are no never mind.

No. Scientists are people and not infallible. It would be foolish to blindly accept the stat3ments or advice of a single scientist. What I am asking is why would one accept the position or advice on a scientific matter of a non-scientist on a matter in which they have no background or credentials whatsoever? Faced with a serious medical condition, would you rely on the advice of a public relations professional over a surgeon or oncologist?

“Faced with a serious medical condition, would you rely on the advice of a
public relations professional over a surgeon or oncologist?”
Depends if they were offering leeches, big pharma or real careful medicines and procedures.
I would listen to someone who has gone through the problem before or had a relative with the problem and did research and weight their advice only slightly less than the professional.
I know of many procedures that are pure quackery including prescribing “Ritalin” to young boys.
As for Mark Steyn, he has done a lot of compilation of research and has been advised by many legitimate scientists, so yes, I would listen to what he says and then check it out for myself.
By the way, my field is biology, particularly dendrology and until I retired, I practiced that art for about 30 years. As a result I have a great interest in Mann’s reconstruction of Briffa’s work. It is garbage. Mann switch from tree rings to thermometers for the entire 20th century and that is a no no in science. He will eventually pay.

Not infallible? There is a huge gulf between infallibility and intentionally deleting or altering the data to fit your “gut” world view! Comparing conclusions reached with grossly false data to conclusions reached by an oncologist is so ridiculous that I wish I had the wit of Mark Steyn to lambaste you with. Mann’s hockey stick left out the medieval warm period and the “Little Ice Age” between ~1600 and 1850, not to mention the total falsification of the 20th century data.
Mark Steyn, unlike the other defendants being sued for defamation of character, is not a scientist and is being sued because of his comments calling Mann’s work fraudulent after his exposure as a liar and data manipulator through leaked emails. I’m guessing that Mr. Steyn was incensed that a good portion of the world’s governments had been duped into spending billions by this falsified and alarmist drivel that was produced at US taxpayer expense.
If Michael Mann is so sure of his hockey stick, why hasn’t he released the data upon which it was built? President Trump called global warming a hoax, took anything related to it off the White House website and muzzled the EPA; why hasn’t Mann sued him for defamation? Could it be the RICO lawsuit the feds could file against him and his co-conspirators?
Mann was cleared of any malfeasance by a Penn St. administrative panel earlier this year, but those lily-livered snakes cleared Jerry Sandusky too. Mann should be stripped of his PhD, charged with his fellow climate change liars with RICO and jailed. Then the Kyoto agreements and the Paris Accord can be revisited by the rest of the world, this time viewed as the huge boondoggles they are. Of course, the United States of America will let the world do what it wants as we rejected both “Treaties”.

Such fluff…and no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your silly claims. Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

More conspiracy rubbish. NASA’s position has been consistent over decades through multiple republican and democratic administrations. Its position is also consistent with the positions of the National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. Who have you got substantiating your ridiculous position?

George Soros leader and puppet master of the New World Order is not a conspiracy. I’ll make it easy for you go to Amazon and put in the search engine, of Amazon, the words New World Order and see how many books pop up about it. Ignorance is bliss.

Why did you delete your previous reply? It was far more entertaining, and no more stupid than what you’ve replaced it with:

Beirish65

12 hours ago

George Soros leader and puppet master of the New World Order is not a conspiracy. I’ll make it easy for you go to Amazon and put in the
search engine, of Amazon, the words New World Order and see how many books pop up about it. Ignorance is bliss.

Ridiculous and it’s not worth talking to you because you’re so blinded by what you think is the truth. The New World Order It’s not a conspiracy it is a fact. George Soros is not a conspiracy he is a fact of evil. Follow the money if you can handle it because I don’t think you can handle the truth because it would disturb your entire educational background. If we want roc it’s not a conspiracy it is a fact. George Soros is not a conspiracy he’s a fact of evil. Follow the money if you can handle it because I don’t think you can handle the truth because it would disturb your entire educational background. It Rock your entire being to find out the truth about this country and the And how our political system is rigged to steal wealth from uneducated people like you through global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. How come our Gore has a multimillion dollar house and a multi million dollar bank account and has a plane and gas guzzling automobiles and he talks about global warming him like it’s a major problem? If it was such a major problem then why does he have all the things that he has? Follow the money. Follow the money.

Please, Mr. Unicorn, do point us to a single experiment that proves the correlation between CO2 and warming of the biosphere. Hint: you cannot … because it does not exist. What you have is circumstantial evidence that could be caused by AGW or natural causes. You do not have definitive proof of how much is AGW and how much is natural. All you have is a political agenda that looks at science through magical, rainbow-colored glasses and cries, “Wolf!!”

Best to leave the deep end of the intellectual pool. You’re in WAY over your head.

Not even close. Attempting to trot out a theoretical explanation for an as yet unproven theory and assuming it’s undeniable is just what we would expect from those pushing a political agenda. There has been NO experiment conducted on the effect of CO2 on the Earth’s biosphere. All of the variables cannot even be said to be known, the signs of certain variables are still being debated, and the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 has a ridiculous error margin. The models do not agree with observation. And there is no credible explanation for the noticeable rise in temp 191x-194x (when CO2 was flat), the pause in temp 194x-197x (when CO2 began to rise), and the current pause in temp (200x-present, with noticeable rise in CO2, and acknowledged by many recognized alarmists). No, you’re the type that has Feynman rolling in his grave. We’re done here.

You’re done because you know you’ve answered with more unsubstantiated drivel. There is no lack of theoretical explanations for the few real issues you’ve mentioned – many of which have acheived concensus.

But not all your issues are real: your “current pause” claim is a blatant and dangerous lie. Each of the last three years surpassed the previous annual high temperature records – the last two, year-over-year by a wide margin.

Mann’s paper has been discounted and battered by many within the profession. Suggest you get Steyn’s book which deals with this; also talk to Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit, who, whilst not a climate scientist is a tip top statistician – he’s pulled his paper to pieces on numerous grounds.

I don’t blindly trust anyone, scientist or otherwise. But Mann is a proven liar (see his now-retracted claim to have been a “Nobel Laureate,” among other things) and a well-known prevaricator (see “Mike’s Nature trick”). It’s difficult to understand how or why anyone in the climate science community places any confidence in Mann at this point.

Untrue statement. His conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature. Why not inform yourself of the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Scroll down to bottom…the page also includea links to data that inform his research on “Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia”

Incorrect comparison. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an “authority” outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

Dr. Ball`s positions on climate change and those of the silly “Friends of Science” are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. On what basis do you reject this position?

>> A made up number based on no evidence whatsoever. Unsubstantiated rubbish. You are good at that.

“What do you think about this little gem? ”

>> A single article in an obscure and shortly-to-be-discontinued journal doesn’t undermine decades and decades of climate science and mountains of evidence generated by multiple, independent lines of science. And Marohasy is a well-known contrarian. Doesn’t change a thing.

“…His [Mann’s] conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature…”
That’s because the “current scientific literature” is riddled with Mann’s fraudulent papers; and with those of his equally-dishonest peers.

“…According to what authority and on what basis?…”
Hi Michael…
The fact that you ask such an obviously ignorant question shows your true trollish intentions – to force a dialogue with those who see through you; and who’ve witnessed your effective bullying of peers like Briffa into complying not with the scientific method – but with what YOU want the data to show.
Well, I won’t waste any more time with you. We know who you are; and I won’t take your disgusting bait…

Exactly right. He should Mann up and confess that his hockey stick is more political schtick than science. We’ll forgive him if he does. Otherwise he’ll probably be denounced as a witch and burnt at the stake if he doesn’t.

1) Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.

2) Greenland ice core data shows stable temperature for 10,000 years varying between 14-16C. The alarmist scare is based upon the thermometer temperature record that covers only 150 years or part of the current warm period that is unremarkable relative to the last 10,000 years.

3) Water vapor accounts for 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 for 19%. Man made CO2 emissions account for 1-2% of CO2 emissions.

4) The greenhouse effect of CO2 is exponentially reducing. From 0 to 20 ppm it is 1.5C. From 380 to 400 ppm, it is less than .05C.

5) From 1960 to today, CO2 ppm has increased steadily. From 1960 to 1980 temp decreased, from 1980 – 2000 temp increased, from 2000 – today temp has been stable.

6) Temperature predictions made by the global climate models are wrong and getting worse with every passing year.

7) Sea level increased 8 inches in the 19th and 20th century. It is likely to do the same in the 21st. Even if the Arctic melts, it is only 2% of the ice and it wont increase sea level because it is floating. Antarctica with 90% of the global ice is adding 8 inches of ice per year. During WW2 some airplanes crash landed in Greenland, recently they were found under 268 feet of ice.

8) 150 years ago at 280 ppm CO2, we were dangerously close to a mass extinction (plants start to die at 180 ppm). The increase in CO2 to 400 ppm has led to increased food production and the greening of the planet.

Thank you for the science exercise. But the political forces pushing climate change are not interested in what you have to say. They’re simply using cooked up scientific data to hoodwink governments tino going along. Cutting CO2 emissions will not lower temperatures but that is not the intention. Oh sure, the Union of Concerned Scientist and other climate changers are spewing out the best models EPA money can buy. But, if the scandal at East Anglia U. taught us anything, it taught us that the political forces behind climate change and global warming don’t give a damn about truth or falsehood. They have one obsession. That is to massively reduce global population by 6 billion people. This is the objective of the current household that rules the British Empire. To drive my point home, I refer to the Copenhagen Conference on CO2. After it failed to get other nations to go along with cutting fossil fuel production, British Queen Elizabeth and her representatives began to intensify their efforts to broaden the message on the need to cut carbon emissions. This explains how and why Hans Schellnhuber, Knights Commander of the British Empire, became the advisor to Pope Francis on Climate Change. Schellnhuber wrote the draft on Climate Change that ended up in the Pope’s Encyclical, Laudato Si. Until very recently, Schellnhuber’s website represented his crazy views on the need to drastically reduce global population levels. Among his statements he said ” the carrying capacity of the planet is 1 billion people.” When he was confronted with this statement, he denied he said it. But it was posted on his website until he took it down. This guy has been a mouthpiece for action on cutting population for a long time. Cutting CO2 emissions by shutting down fossil fuels is just another way to reach the intended objective.. Before you tell me there is no such thing any longer as the British Empire, reflect for a moment on Obama’s alternative energy agenda. And then Clinton’s announcement of ending all US coal production if elected. Who influenced their decisions?
Is it coincidence that Obama’s and Clinton’s policies on energy were the same? And they matched the objectives of the British Empire? She and Obama may not know why they were doing it, but they were adopting the energy policies that met the objectives of the British Imperial system.
Confronted with this fraud, you, me, and millions of others, some of whom practice real science, are in full rejection mode. Right? Reams of Scientific data that prove Climate Change is not man made, have been recorded and reported on. But because the British are absolutely determined to achieve their objectives, regardless of the reams of realistic scientific data, it means nothing to them. What they intend to do in the next 20 to 100 years, is to massively reduce population to the often stated 1 billion people That’s what they intend and they will not stop until they are stopped! This is the real issue, not who has the correct data. It is a fight for civilization and it has to be fought and won by destroying the British Empire. And also by increasing the energy flux density of the Biosphere through producing higher forms of energy with 4th generation nuclear fission plants while creating a crash program to build commercial fusion.

The hat salesman who walked into the oval office after FDR died was in the grips of Wall Street bankers. The likes of which were responsible for funding Hitler’s rise to power. Wall is and has always been an outpost of the British Empire. After WWII the Empire identified itself as the Commonwealth of nations. While no longer a landed aristocracy, the British Imperial financial system functions much like the Roman Empire that came before it. The Anglo-Dutch imperial system was folded into what became the British Empire after the defeat of France in the seven years war. It is the same financial system of usury that rules international financial markets and cartels today. It has an American side to it that functions from Wall Street bankng. Individuals such as George Soros function as operatives for the British Foreign Office. Soros’s Open Society for instance is used to destabilize governments that have been targeted by the British for regime change. Soros pumped billions in the coup in Ukraine to destabilize Russia. The British have prized Russia as the crown jewel from which to dominate the world. Yes there is a long history to it and mastering it helps one to understand the nature of our chief enemy, the British Empire.

Socialists like you certainly are funny. No matter what happens in the world you can find a “corporation” to blame it on. YOU drive a car. You buy gasoline. The government makes 10 times as much per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do but you somehow believe that the oil companies are working against “a green earth”. When it is drawn out in front of you that electric cars actually generate MORE CO2 than gasoline cars do you STILL don’t believe it and tell us that Tesla is the wave of the future. But the fact that Tesla is a corporation doesn’t register on your extremely slow thinking process. You are so incredibly stupid you don’t even know what Wall St. is or how it works but since people are making money off of it it MUST be evil right? All you need is the floppy shoes and the red nose to complete your costume.

cont’d….the green movement began with the export of Prince Philip’s WWF to America in 1962. The boomer generation was deliberately drugged up by CIA MK-ULTRA. LSD proliferation on the college campuses was accomplished in part by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters bus tour from college campus to college campus handing out free LSD laced cool-aid. Timothy Leary and other counter-culture Gurus were also instrumental in brain-washing an entire generation to tune in, drop acid and drop out of society. The British and their collaborators in the US who were associated with CIA funded Congress for Cultural Freedom, lit a match that set a generation on fire.
On the music side, Frankfurt School mind-bender and Tavistock collaborator, Theodore Adorno, was chiefly responsible for the Radio Music Project that originated “Rock Music.” To produce the sound he was looking for, Adorno studied African tribal music. He came up with a drum beat sound that would produce in the listener, the infantile emotion of a child “bed rocker.” Hence the name, “Rock Music.” This is all documented. In fact Adorno brags about it.
Look, the reason the post WWII boomer generation was targeted for paradigm culture change, was to break the bond between the boomers and the generations that preceded them. Because the generations that lived during WWII were committed to and identified with scientific and technological progress. They were production oriented. They had just won a world war by outproducing Germany 4 to 1 in logistics. Under Truman the British were able to chip away at the WWII production based system. For that, British monetarist Maynard Keynes was brought in to advise Truman. Monetary emission substituted capital intensive production. Within 10 years after WWII it blew up in their faces! The British knew they had to rip the boomers from their parents. They realized that if they were going to transform the US they would have to capture a generation to do it.
A new belief was manufacture. One that was anti-science and oriented around protecting the environment. You could say that the brain washing of the boomers into adopting the Rock-Drugs-Sex anti-science counter culture as their own was introduced on the Ed Sullivan Show by the British bank known as The Beatles. Do you find this preposterous? Then you don’t know about the history of the British Tavistock Institute. Look there and also at the beginnings of the WWF. Look into Adorno and the Frankfurt School. MK-ULTRA and Margaret Mead’s husband, Gregory Bateson who was part of that operation. Look into the Congress for Cultural Freedom. I’ll stop here. You have work to do

1948 Donora smog. The 1948 Donora smog was a historic air inversion that resulted in a wall of smog that killed 20 people and sickened 7,000 in Donora, Pennsylvania, a mill town on the Monongahela River, 24 miles (39 km) southeast of Pittsburgh. The event is commemorated by the Donora Smog Museum.

****
For most of the century from 1850 to 1950, however, the primary environmental cause was the mitigation of air pollution.

The Coal Smoke Abatement Society was formed in 1898 making it one of the oldest environmental NGOs. It was founded by artist Sir William Blake Richmond, frustrated with the pall cast by coal smoke. Although there were earlier pieces of legislation, the Public Health Act 1875 required all furnaces and fireplaces to consume their own smoke.
John Ruskin an influential thinker who articulated the Romantic ideal of environmental protection and conservation

Systematic and general efforts on behalf of the environment only began in the late 19th century; it grew out of the amenity movement in Britain in the 1870s, which was a reaction to industrialization, the growth of cities, and worsening air and water pollution. Starting with the formation of the Commons Preservation Society in 1865, the movement championed rural preservation against the encroachments of industrialisation. Robert Hunter, solicitor for the society, worked with Hardwicke Rawnsley, Octavia Hill, and John Ruskin to lead a successful campaign to prevent the construction of railways to carry slate from the quarries, which would have ruined the unspoilt valleys of Newlands and Ennerdale. This success led to the formation of the Lake District Defence Society (later to become The Friends of the Lake District).[15]

In 1893 Hill, Hunter and Rawnsley agreed to set up a national body to coordinate environmental conservation efforts across the country; the “National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty” was formally inaugurated in 1894.[16] The organisation obtained secure footing through the 1907 National Trust Bill, which gave the trust the status of a statutory corporation.[17] and the bill was passed in August 1907.[18]

An early “Back-to-Nature” movement, which anticipated the romantic ideal of modern environmentalism, was advocated by intellectuals such as John Ruskin, William Morris, and Edward Carpenter, who were all against consumerism, pollution and other activities that were harmful to the natural world.[19] The movement was a reaction to the urban conditions of the industrial towns, where sanitation was awful, pollution levels intolerable and housing terribly cramped. Idealists championed the rural life as a mythical Utopia and advocated a return to it. John Ruskin argued that people should return to a small piece of English ground, beautiful, peaceful, and fruitful. We will have no steam engines upon it . . . we will have plenty of flowers and vegetables . . . we will have some music and poetry; the children will learn to dance to it and sing it.[20]

Practical ventures in the establishment of small cooperative farms were even attempted and old rural traditions, without the “taint of manufacture or the canker of artificiality”, were enthusiastically revived, including the Morris dance and the maypole.[21]
Original title page of Walden by Henry David Thoreau

The movement in the United States began in the late 19th century, out of concerns for protecting the natural resources of the West, with individuals such as John Muir and Henry David Thoreau making key philosophical contributions. Thoreau was interested in peoples’ relationship with nature and studied this by living close to nature in a simple life. He published his experiences in the book Walden, which argues that people should become intimately close with nature. Muir came to believe in nature’s inherent right, especially after spending time hiking in Yosemite Valley and studying both the ecology and geology. He successfully lobbied congress to form Yosemite National Park and went on to set up the Sierra Club in 1892.

Look backward to the turn of the century. Progress has been in every field of science. The air is cleaner. The waters are purer. And the national parks are protected. The problem is, no new cites are being built along rivers and tributaries West of the Mississippi, where new cities would flourish. I have been to Central and North Africa and I can tell you, the first thing that comes to mind is, Africa isn’t over populated, it’s underdeveloped. But with modern technology and great projects, such as the Transaqua Lake Chad project and the Nigerian Oasis Plan, Africa can leap frog to the 21st century.

but that is
THANKS to legislation at the federal level, regulating emissions that cross state lines, which 1 state cannot enforce.
***
You say:
“The waters are purer.”
but that is
THANKS to legislation at the federal level, regulating dumping like emissions that cross state lines, which 1 state cannot enforce.

1 state cannot afford the Hundreds of millions required to sue to correct
dumping and pollution from international conglomerates.

Most sane people want all three. Therefore the majority of Americans support Government regulations that put a check on the excesses of corporations that may try to circumvent the law to save money. One such company was Dow chemical. Dow became so powerful during the 60’s that they got away with murder, literally! Agent Orange and napalm were two of Dow’s killer creations. And the US government was complicit in it.

Flint, Michigan’s is another example. The polluting of it’s water supply is another example of saving money at the expense of human life. But in this case it was city, state and federal governments that were responsible. And it happened on the greenest of green president’s watch. Because it was Obama’s EPA that signed off on allowing lead contaminated Detroit river water to flow into Flint’s main water supply system. But unfortunately, only lower level managers were punished. The Michigan governor and Obama’s EPA secretary should have been held accountable for the human suffering it caused.

My point is this. There is a role for government to play in the affairs of our nation. And in order for progress to continue In the interests of our people, we need Good government. One that protects and obeys the principal of promoting the General Welfare of our citizens, and all that that implies. I believe this president, President Trump, is dedicated to that principle.

The EPA didn’t sign off on the FLINT ISSUE at all.
OBAMA didn’t sign off on the FLINT ISSUE at all.

THAT decision was made in 2014.
The EPA was not consulted until 2015 when IT’S Laboratory
proved the STATE Republican Administration was lying.
****
“….

FLINT, MI — A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official who sounded a dire warning about toxic lead in Flint’s drinking water seven months ago says he couldn’t believe the water wasn’t being treated to make it less corrosive to lead service lines and indoor plumbing.

“I was stunned when I found out they did not have corrosion control in place,” Miguel A. Del Toral, regulations manager in the EPA’s ground water and drinking water branch, said in an interview with The Flint Journal-MLive today, Jan. 21, 2016.

“In my head, I didn’t believe that. I thought: That can’t be true…that’s so basic. That’s not possible.”

Del Toral wrote an interim report on high levels of lead in Flint water on June 24, 2015, months after other EPA officials had warned the state Department of Environmental Quality that the chemistry of Flint River water was appeared to be causing transmission pipes to leach contaminants such as lead into the water supply….”

“FLINT MICHIGAN’S WATER/LEAD catastrophe had next to nothing to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…..”

Excuse me??? The EPA rather than treating poisonous and corrosive water in mines put off this treatment so long that the dams holding this water in finally broke and dumped all of this junk into the Flint river. For awhile the corruption in this river was so strong that the river ran yellow.

In the meantime as had been expected Flint had to shut off their water supply from Lake Huron in order to complete a new and more reliable water supply pipeline.

Flint was FORCED to use Flint River water which was still brimming full with corrosive acids from the untreated mine water that was not still pouring into the river upstream from Flint.

These corrosives burned the insides of the very old city water system. Old water pipes were typically lead and the lead oxide would seal the inside surfaces so that lead wasn’t released into the water running through the system. Most of the old cities on the east coast are exactly the same.

The corrosives that the EPA (in case you are unaware of it that is a Federal Government Agency) allowed to drain into the river burned the inside of the city water system and released heavy lead contamination into the city water supply.

People who are unaware of what conditions in this country were before WW II think that everything is new and beautiful and that local governments should somehow tear billions of dollars in piping out and replace it with plastic whose long term effects are unknown.

My belief is that these people saying this should be taxed for every city service replacement charges. Or as Ceasar said, “Give the masses what they want” and charge them for every single thing.

THAT does not even remotely resemble the truth…..UNLESS INVITED into a mine issue…the EPA cannot take action.

SUPPLY a source for that TALL TALE about the mines the EPA was supposedly involved with????

SINCE the EPA has been under attack for petty REPUBLICAN PARTY REASONS….has had its budgets routinely restricted… I am not surprised if they couldn’t do every thing at the same time to stop

industrial & mining abuses…….
BUT I WANT TO SEE YOUR SOURCE !

YOUR chronology of events is PURE FICTION….pulled right out of your ars.

Most old cities…like flint used to do…add chemical to prevent leaching of lead into the water.
THAT TOO is not an EPA issue until invited into it……that invite came in 2015…thought the kids were being poisoned since 2014.

You are a clown. I don’t supply a “source” to morons unable to do a simple google search. What you have shown is that you do not know what happened and why. But you are spending an extraordinary amount of time talking about it from a position of absolute ignorance.

The CIA or any other government agency had nothing to do with LSD. It wasn’t even illegal at the time. There were LSD labs springing up on every campus just like today they are making false opiates that can kill you with a single dose. These college people had a sharp drop in IQ and a complete lapse of direction. I had people telling me that it was completely harmless as they, a year later, committed suicide. A large part of the “green movement” today act exactly like those drugged out people so I suspect that it causes DNA damage that in inheritable. Look at the reactions of R. Kooi and LTJ. From a position of complete ignorance they are trying to convince people of something that doesn’t exist. Even though this article is about Dr. Michael Mann about to be shown as a scammer they still have full faith in his attempt to gain more research grant money.

Gregory Bateson was a guest teacher at Esalen Institute. “Bandler and Grinder also drew upon theories of Gregory Bateson, Alfred Korzybski and Noam Chomsky, particularly transformational grammar,[20][23][24] as well as ideas and techniques from Carlos Castaneda.[25]”

“Background and origination of NLP The ideas and approach found in NLP draw from two main areas of thought. The first is cybernetics, a cross-disciplinary view of how systems are organised based on feedback that was developed in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and in which another major influence on NLP, Gregory Bateson, was a core figure. The founders of NLP, Bandler and Grinder, echo central principles of cybernetics when they say that `the basic unit of analysis in face-to-face communication is the feedback loop’ (Bandler & Grinder 1979:2).

The second area of thought is the work of the Palo Alto Mental Research Institute in the 1960s, in which Bateson again was involved. Significantly, the Palo Alto researchers emphasised the pragmatics of human communication, which also characterises NLP, and constructivism, which is the idea that people cannot know `reality’ as such, so inevitably they act according to constructions that they create.”

“The NLP Logical Levels of Change Model, inspired by Gregory Bateson and developed by the pioneers of Neuro-Linguistic Programming is very helpful in designing an action plan for change. The Stages of Change give us a general road map of the process of change — a process that has a beginning, a middle, and an outcome……..

Gregory Bateson, a well known cultural anthropologist, pointed out that in the processes of learning, change, and communication there were natural hierarchies.”

“Although initially reluctant to join the intelligence services, Bateson served in OSS during World War II along with dozens of other anthropologists.[19] He spent much of the war designing ‘black propaganda’ radio broadcasts. He was deployed on covert operations in Burma and Thailand, and worked in China, India, and Ceylon as well. Bateson used his theory of schismogenesis to help foster discord among enemy fighters.”

stephen – that is the largest danger of the global warming True Believers. They would have power generation cut off for the entire world. They believe man to be a cancer on the Earth and that murdering tens of millions of Chinese and Indians nothing more than a better life for themselves. This was PRECISELY the language that Margaret Sanger used to found Planned Parenthood and this is the same drive behind the “environmentalists” that are trying to press for the USA to remain in the Paris Accord – which said that ONLY the USA had to do anything until after 2020. Of course the rest of the world was for shutting down the US economy so that they could accelerate their own.

Noting that Stephen’s silly, misinformed position on climate change is diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy including NASA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and the American Geophysical Union.

Explain Gina McCarthy Senate hearing in Jan 16 17 2014. After lengthy obfuscation she admitted there has been no temp increase over the past decade. After her embarrassment the SPA, MISS and NASA fabricated the Temperature Anomaly. The Temp Anomaly has not been defined. Those agencies refuse to explain why they went from Global Mean Tempetature to the Temp Anomaly. Cleary there is no science to support the Temp Anomaly.

Because I just completed reading her testimony
and
YOUR COMMENT APPEARS to be a TOTAL FICTION.
.
If you Read the Daily Caller, you will remember the HEADLINE, a few days ago…
.
THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCELERATION !
in this ONGOING GLOBAL WARMING EVENT !

THERE has been NO “PAUSE”
.
THERE has been NO “HIATUS”
.
THERE sure as hell been NO “COOLING” !

So just above you say she said there was NO temperature increase
and she was worthy of quoting.
BUT
NOW
YOU KNOW that even DAILY CALLER isn’t covering up the Temperature Increases…..
NOW, McCarthy is no longer reliable and quote worthy..

Your link seems to have disappeared. The video proceedings are a 5 hr video. There is a closed caption search available on site. Avail youself of it and send the results.
Just as I did to show the lawerly trick pulled by the then Sen. Sessions

The NASA temperature records have been kept and the changes in them have been recorded. Now it is always possible for these changes to have been made for newly found reasons to correct the record. But that isn’t what occurred – the records were changed with every reading rising in the same percentage. This occurred at least two times. So on the records of those who kept copies of the temperature records we have the original records and two rises. We have had “the hottest year ever” business and then when you look into it the “rise” in temperature is one tenth the error margin. So THAT is all an F-ing lie as well.

We’ve watched as Ian and LTJ have constantly lied about this stuff because as members of the Church of Global Warming it is their duty to lie about it. Too bad neither of them has the slightest training in science and make up for it with “but Dr. Mann says”.

Posts silly link to a 6- year-old rubbish article written by a well-known climate contrarian and disinformation professional. Larry Bell has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Hasn’t published a single scientific journal article on the topic. Absolutely nothing. Yet you present him as an authority on the subject. Weak and deliberately misleading.

I’ve been waiting for your credentials to have the capacity to judge anyone about anything. Judging from your other postings I wonder how you can feed yourself. It is DR. Larry Bell and you are, as far as I can tell, not even a high school graduate. People who have received a doctorate can generally deal with statistics and data. You certainly cannot.

Dr. Larry Bell? And who might he be? if you are referring to the Larry Bell that authored the silly Forbes article that you cited upthread, that Larry Bell does not have a PhD, a fact easily verified. Moreover, he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science on climate science or a related field. Nothing. Please stop intentionally trying to mislead readers.

“I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax”. It can be previewed and ordered at http://www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.”

Your post would have some veracity if you actually quoted and cited McCarthy saying that. Ideally, since it was a hearing, there could be a vid.
So. Why not do as even the average 6th grader does routinely, and bring documentation and supporting details to your claim?

Circa 1985 ALL truth about the climate was no longer available. Of COURSE most of the world’s scientific community could “agree” with the NASA assessment because it was an attempt to hobble the US production engine that control most of the world’s production. NO ONE ELSE in the world was required to do ANYTHING. Only the US. This gave each and every government progressively more and more power. And the investment community decided that they could also get rich quick by selling carbon credits.

If you don’t have the brains that God gave a goat then I suggest you stay out of conversations you know nothing about or even worse are nothing more than a paid shill.

Explain the 1958 Scientific Community Report to President Eisenhower…warning of the MASSIVE pumping of TOXIC WASTE GASES into the atmosphere for over 100 years…and the threat of Global Climate Changes.

Explain the 1965 Scientific Community Report to President Johnson…warning even more sternly of the THREAT of Global Warming and Climate changes.
…
1st a Fun Factoid:
“Glen Reese, Ph.D Physics, KSU
CO2 is So Small a Part of the Atmosphere ? ? ?
A small fraction of 5 x 10^18 kg of atmosphere is still a lot of CO2.
About 10^15 kg of CO2. If it was compressed into dry ice,
it would form a shell around the planet over 2 mm thick.
It’s enough to block a lot of IR radiation from escaping to space
in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere,
as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).
.
Mean global temperature (1850-1890) is roughly 13.7°C.
.
First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.
1799
Alexander von Humboldt, Thomas Jefferson
Climate Change postulated because of Human Activities!
1824
Fourier calculates that the Earth would be FAR colder if it lacked an atmosphere. =>Simple models
1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. =>Other gases
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. =>Simple models
1897
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks. =>Simple models
1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.
1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.
1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.
1930s
Global warming trend since late 19th century reported. =>Modern temp’s
Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages. =>Climate cycles
1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question. =>CO2 greenhouse
1939-1945
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.
1945
US Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change. =>Government
1956
Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset. =>Simple models
Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere. =>Models (GCMs)
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance. =>Radiation math
1957
Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies. =>International
Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans. =>CO2 greenhouse
1958
AAAS delivers to President Eisenhower, a research report and Warning about Climate Changes caused by global warming and Industrial Gas/Chemical Emissions.
Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water. =>Venus & Mars
1960
Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.=>Modern temp’s
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
1962
Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.
1963
Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level. =>Radiation math
1965
American Association for the Advancement of Science delivers to President Johnson, Research Report & Warning, with Spot On accurate projections about Climate change for 2015.
Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts. =>Chaos theory
1966
Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores and Broecker’s analysis of ancient corals show that the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes. =>Climate cycles
1967
International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but including climate. =>International
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math
1968
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice
1969
Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole. =>Public opinion
Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks. =>Simple models
Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements. =>Government
1970
First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation. =>Public opinion
Creation of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world’s leading funder of climate research. =>Government
Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling. =>Aerosols
1971
SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort. =>International
Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different climate in the past.=>Venus & Mars
1972
Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago. =>Rapid change
Droughts in Africa, Ukraine, India cause world food crisis, spreading fears about climate change. =>Public opinion
1973
Oil embargo and price rise bring first “energy crisis”. =>Government
1974
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.=>Public opinion
1975
Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer. =>Other gases
Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2. =>Models (GCMs)
1976
Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. =>Other gases
Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. =>Climate cycles

Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate. =>Biosphere
Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods .=>Solar variation
1977
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century. =>Public opinion
1978
Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth in funding. =>Government
1979
Second oil “energy crisis.” Strengthened environmental movement encourages renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth. =>Public opinion
US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming. =>Models (GCMs)
World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international research. =>International

Yes of course…thousands of scientists the world over, working for decades in multiple disciplines and jurisdictions, in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors…all part of a global conspiracy to murder Chinese, Indians and Africans. You go ahead and cling to that ridiculous, extreme notion.

In the first place since H. W. Bush the US started spending $2 Billion/yr. All you had to say was you wanted to prove global warming and YOU were in the money. So don’t give me your crap about how all these scientists believed in this for one second. The actual money spent is $1.5 Trillion and that would make ANYONE say ANYTHING. With your ignorance of science it isn’t surprising that you will stick to your guns.

More distraction. My physical location and appearance has no bearing whatsoever on the science, evidence and implications of climate change. Why not educate yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

We grow tired of people who are so obviously mentally 16 years old and slow at that. When I came back from Vietnam from my Air Force hitch I was walking through the LA terminal with a plane load of Army. Little MFers like you were marching up and down screaming “Baby killers” as the nicest thing. We were all walking down to pick up our duffle bags when one SOB spit on my uniform. That guy’s jaw shattered on contact. The cops came running down there to grab me and stopped at the last second and looked around. There was an entire planeload of Army mad as hell surrounding them. Finally with a little judgement those cops picked up that POS and carried him out of there to an emergency hospital. And as we walked down through those scum protesters it was like the parting of the Red Sea. Like you, not one of them had considered the personal effect of your actions. I will tell you again you twerp – I have been in the front edge of science for 40 years and more. My first job out of the Air Force was nuclear research. What have you done jerkoff? Don’t give me some NASA website when they are liars like all of you “environmentalists”. You’re nothing more than another Margaret Sanger who wished to murder everyone other than the upper white elite. Who founded Planned Parenthood that are all placed in black or other minority neighborhoods and kill 40% of the business in black babies. So, yes, what you look like is really important because I think you have a face to smash in. Before and after photos would be a nice page in facebook with your name on it.

“Little MFers like you”, “you twerp”, “jerkoff”, “liars like all of you”, “murder everyone”, “kill 40% of the business in black babies”, “a face to smash in”, etc, etc.

>> Clearly you have some issues. And none of your outrage has any relevance on the science, evidence and implications of climate change. And no, you are not on the “front edge of science”. You are far behind and simply repeating the tired, old talking points of disinformation professionals…and are convincing no one.

I notice that you’re more than willing to take that picture completely out of context. When was THAT picture taken and where? It certainly looks like a group of families on a military base. The only places I saw friendly receptions was at Travis Air Force Base. Why would you be more willing to accept the line of some scummy leftist over people who actually experienced it in person? There is something really wrong with you liberals.

1. “Even The Times once quoted, matter-of-factly, a veteran telling of how he arrived stateside from Vietnam on a stretcher with a bullet in his leg, only to be splattered with rotten vegetables and spat on by antiwar college kids.

Whoppers like these go unchallenged by reporters and scholars perhaps because of their memoirist first-person quality, stories told by the men who say it happened to them.”

So even though the Times reported this, it’s untrue. Doesn’t that give you a really uneasy feeling the in the pit of your stomach?

2. Commercial landings to military bases didn’t come until late in the Vietnam Airlift. Exactly how in the hell do you suppose they made interconnecting flights for the myriad bases they had to go to?

3. In my previous postings I noted NOT just the experience I had but the fact that I did the Avionics recovery for 3 years during the Vietnam Airlift. I saw this happen at ALL of the major airports but especially at San Francisco International Airport.

4. That picture did NOT say it was at a military base or where. It said “people welcoming home military.” Exactly what is your point in saying otherwise? Unless you somehow have something different than the picture I’m seeing?

And by the way – don’t think for one second that surveys aren’t designed to arrive at a conclusion. Any social research group well knows how to do surveys so that their beliefs are upheld with a survey. For instance – surveys show that climate change is believed in by 97% of all scientists. Scientists find that interesting because less than 30% actually do.

I will note that by not including the whole paragraph in your quote you’ve changed the meaning of your material.
That is pretty poor behavior, ethically, academicaly, intellectuslly.

I was landing on airbases from 67 . The article corroborate’s that.
V. You making a claim. Like your ‘fractured jaw’ claim.

3 is again you making claims. Which was much the point of the article;that most of the claims grew to near mythology and with little factual basis or evidence.
So, basically, your storytelling is just reinforcing the findings of the nyt article.

4. Your claim: “It certainly looks like a group of families on a military base.”.
I said the photo was in context to the article. Vets generally recd good treatment on landing.

By quoting the entire paragraph I change it’s meaning???? That’s just about the most audacious thing you could say. It proves your own poor ethics!

Exactly what is “I was landing on airbases from 67” supposed to mean?

In my experience which is, I’ll warrant, a great deal wider than yours, that is what I saw. I had my own personal experience of being spit on in LA International. I also worked in all of the major airports around the San Francisco bay area all the way down to Moffett Field and San Francisco International, Oakland International and Travis AFB where the protesters would be lined up outside of the base picketing the AFB.

“And the picture has the photographers name, and the military unit those families were a part of.” is exactly what you said.

Again, you’re making claims with no evidence. Assertions which you have no basis to form a statement from.
“..great deal wider than yours,”

And again, I’m going to restate the thesis of the article I linked to: the tales of spitting and other ill-treatment has not been borne out in facts. The stories have commonalities that are assumed and don’t fit the basic facts on the ground.

“I was glad the reporter was interested in the origin of these stories, because beginning even before the war ended, news organizations had too often simply repeated them — even though some stories had the hallmarks of tall tales all over them. Even The Times once quoted, matter-of-factly, a veteran telling ….”

Thanks for the days long demonstration of what it takes to fabricate a devoid of fact position.

After serving in Vietnam from June ’66 to June ’67, I returned to the States to a wonderful reception.

It was the first week in June. I landed at Travis Air Force Base in California, went to the Oakland Army Terminal, and was cleared to go home for 30 days’ leave. I bought a ticket for a flight to Chicago that was scheduled to depart at approximately 4 p.m. Pacific Time. As I walked through the terminal, I noticed several long-haired people but thought nothing of it until I was approached by a young couple who stoped me and asked if I were returning from Nam.

As they were smiling and seemed friendly, I said yes. With that they both started calling me names — Baby Killer and Fascist Dog, among others — before the girl spat at me as her friend shoved me.”

“David Alvarez, San Jose, Calif. The first time I was in transmit from my ship to a temporary duty station. It was the fall of 1970 and I was in Sacramento, Calif., bus station. I was wearing my dress blue uniform with my Vietnam service ribbons, and I was carrying my sea bag over one shoulder. I was confronted by five anit-war protesters — two females and three males. They stopped to question me about my feelings about the war. I declined to comment. Suddeny one of the females began calling me a baby killer and spat on me.”

“The second incident occurred when I returned from Vietnam in the fall of 1971. I was in my dress uniform in San Francisco airport waiting for my wife to arrive from out of state, when a guy ran up to me, called me a war monger, spat on me and ran off. I started after him, but I lost him in the airport crowd.”

These are letters ONLY from those who happened to read that particular columnist. And were willing to recount painful experiences.

But to leftist crap like Robert it’s all lies.

And do you know why? Because Obama WANTED to continue his war and so had to make people love the soldiers and so he put the word out and the leftist media ran as he beckoned. This is the way of socialists. They stick together like crap and toilet paper.

“whom” would, of course, be the author of the nyt article you misrepresented by your selective quoting.

Again, yet again, you can quote modern ( 1989) sources talking about what a particular writer claims, just as you can write your ‘fractured jaw’ stories. Stories that have similarities, tropes that don’t fit, and parts that don’t match the facts on the ground.

Rational readers know to read the primary documemts. The one discussed in the nyt article.

Whom would be someone other than the author of the New York Times inserting HIS OPINION. Meaning of course that both YOU and HE intended to mislead people and not I.

While you are talking about “tropes” I find that extremely interesting since the use of that word became popular among hippies. But you ain’t old enough for that so I’ll ask you again – were you one of those who had drug using hippy grandparents that left you alone in the crib while they got high? And you intend to spend the rest of your life pretending that they were just good and you had explanations of why they couldn’t have their jaws broken as well?

Rational readers know how to understand what was written and not the intentional misdirection by other people as you have been doing.

Since you noted the intended insult I hope you will take it to heart.

Especially with your intense ignorance of everything military and your follower attitude which equally matches that of all of the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming. You are doing nothing more than following the liberal line that “we’ve always been the good people, even when we were hanging niggers and Republicans”

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

A Times reporter isn’t good enough a source for proof that there was spitting incidences but is more than good enough to prove the reverse. As I said, your sorts of responses come from the mentally disturbed.

He has NEVER explained his “I’ve been landing on airbases since 67”. He appears to be implying that he was a commercial airline pilot. Now IF he were and he landed at any other commercial airport he couldn’t MISS the protesters and their actions against the troops. If he WERE a commercial airline pilot they would rotate flight crew out after long flights and he would KNOW that picture had been taken in a base housing complex. Alameda Naval Air Station is no longer an active base but they STILL have these family housing areas and you can still see them in use by perhaps retired lifers or something.

In short – he is in fact attempting to lie about this entire incident because that is the latest liberal line.

You are the one that stated, “I was landing on airbases from 67” and then wouldn’t answer any questions about that. You plainly meant to imply that you had direct experience with commercial aircraft landing at military bases.

As I noted – besides my own experience in the Air Force, I did electronics instrument recovery on commercial aircraft for three years and they did NOT land at airbases until the end of that three years. The very idea that you could bring thousands of soldiers back with no way to catch interconnecting flights is preposterous. Or perhaps you’re suggesting that they would shuttle soldiers in military buses into the middle of these protesters.

There is really something not all there with you. And your kind of responses comes from people who are mentally disturbed.

You are but a liar. And you couldn’t recognize a fact. Why haven’ you explain your “I was landing on airbases from ’67” statement?

Submitted by Bruce L. Webb, Feb 8, 2007 17:57

Spat on? After two years in theater, I began to meet old Army buddies returning from the “World” who told me harrowing stories about how they’d been “welcomed” home, to such a degree that they volunteered to return to VN rather than be where they were universally reviled for their service. I didn’t believe them – until, on-about-04/15/71 I “processed” off Oakland Army Base enroute home to Texas. As I walked out of the front gate, a very pretty, long-haired blonde girl ran toward me. I smiled at such enthusiasm, but learned quickly as she screamed, “Baby killer”, and SPAT IN MY FACE that my buddies hadn’t lied, Instinctively, I lurched forward to defend myself, but was grabbed by an unseen (GI) hand and jerked backward toward the waiting bus and heard, “It ain’t worth it.” I got on the bus, shocked, humiliated and morally destroyed (no doubt, the plan all along). Only later did I learn that it was an orchestrated act common throughout the US at the time. I see it in my mind’s eye to this day as if it is a bad dream, relived like a bad movie – I would recognize the blonde girl to this day. I will never forget, nor forgive. Bruce Webb, SPC5, USA

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

They both discuss farmers making a living and the state of the food industry. Lots of interrelated topics, though the interviewer really wanted to talk about A.Ws new book rather than what happened in P.R. , etc.

This comment section doesn’t show my answer which I previously posted so I’ll simply repeat:

1. Virtually all surveys are nothing more than political assets. Any research organization can make a survey report anything they want it to. Trump won with an large margin and you can still get surveys from the Times that Obama was preferred let alone Hillary.

2. I entered the USA from the war zone at LA International. I worked on commercial aircraft for three years and until the very end of the Vietnam Airlift all military came through International airports. Exactly how do you propose men stationed at three dozen different bases around the country would get connecting flights? In short – you don’t know what you’re talking about.

3. That story is nothing more than a leftist lie. I told you my experience and if you wish to deny it that is your problem and not mine.

Chicago Tribune: “Homecoming”:
“From Library Journal
“Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?” asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of “hippies” (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war’s most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming. Recommended. Richard W. Grefrath, Univ. of Nevada Lib., Reno
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.”

Almost 3 million Americans served in Vietnam. Most Americans respect not just those who serve in the military but the idea of what Vietnam was about. Obviously YOU do not understand what both Korea and Vietnam were all about.

This does NOT change the fact that the Hippies and Flower Children did express hatred for those they came in contact with and did so viciously at major airports. But a truck driver who knows where his freedom’s emanate buying a vet a beer doesn’t mean that these other incidents did not happen.

You’d really like to know how that looks like an on-base photo??? You were NEVER in the service obviously. Apparently you were NEVER ON a military base and know nothing at all about the on-base housing for families.

I would like to know where in hell you think you have the right to talk about things you don’t know about?

Again, your claims. And the book review you cited reinforces the nyt article;that the stories have many commonalities that are not well supported by primary documents. Note in particular, the reviewer mentioning the use of “hippies”.

Let me guess – your real job is a circus clown? Don’t tell me these things never happened because all of the 3 million people who took part in Vietnam never experienced them. You are about as twisted as possible.

And I’ve dold you several times. The story you are telling fits to retelling posted many places and those stories not only don’t mesh well with the facts on the ground ,but also contain many illogical pieces.
I’m going to stay with reliable sources, extensive research rather than ideologically driven decades after the fact storytellers.

This thread is full of antagonistic language, threats, accusations; and you own them.

Your 4th to the last paragraph is a ‘wrap myself in the flag’ and an unsupportable personal attack and a claim not supported by your bringing forward supporting evidence, not to mention wandering far afield from the topic..

What’s the matter? Are you afraid of a cyber bully? Will you run away from home? Nothing you’ve said has any relevance to science. You haven’t a single qualification in science. Yor hero Dr. Michael Mann is going down hard and there isn’t any talking or quoting NASA that is going to help you help him. You’re nothing more than another disciple in the Church of Global Warming.

I figured that you were some baby fresh out of the womb. The fact is that it happened to me so I expect it happened to others. And eventually this will be coming to you. I expect someone like you will write a book about no one ever believing global warming.

Well, at least we know that you are a little child that never went anywhere and did anything. Between engineering jobs I took a job working for Bayaire Avionics in Oakland. I
recovered aircraft avionics for three years. This was the time of the Vietnam Airlift and I saw this so bad that anyone that says it never happened is not mistaken but a liar. The Flower Generation in all its glory. Was that what you got from your human waste grandparents as they were getting high and you were supposedly in their care? So by all means tell me all about how you read a wikipedia entry that said it never happened.

Once again you make up nonsense about me – hoping to offend. But offence is only taken at your lies and hatemongering. I’ve known a gamut of Americans from Vietnam vets to draft dodgers – and the draft dodgers have had nothing but respect for the men that actually served.

And perhaps I take offense at your arrogant stupidity, as you continue to pretend that you are the one mythical elusive victim of expectorating peaceniks. Do you not understand how ridiculous this pretense makes you seem?

You are no veteran.

STFU and stop embarassing the men who are. You are nothing but a blustering buffoon.

My, thats a fascinating and, of course, given that it’s made by you, totally unsubstantiated claim. Care to try, or shall we just assume you’ve scooped it out of the back of your Depends again, old man?

Once again, do you ever read the articles you link before posting them? Do you understand logic?

If climate change is not real, how can foreign aid to combat its effects be considered an expense of climate change? Aren’t tropical storms, droughts and flooding simply natural events requiring humanitarian aid?

And if “technological subsidy” through tax breaks is to be counted as a climate change expense, surely new tax revenue from burgeoning new industries should be counted as new-found revenue at the same count. Ever hear of Tesla?

These are but two of the logical failings and flaws in this article. Can you not recognise nonsense when you read it?

The Seminal Moment when you realize you have to take a different tack. A different lie. But I must admit you are growing more rediculous by the moment. “IF CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL WHY WOULD OBAMA GIVE BILLIONS TO HIS SUPPORTERS?” And GEE why would he give $525 Million to Solyndra who the very next day passed out that money to the management and then claimed bankruptcy?

“… if we could just stop playing gotcha for a second, we might realize that federal loan programs — especially loans for innovative energy technologies — virtually require the government to take risks the private sector won’t take. Indeed, risk-taking is what these programs are all about. Sometimes, the risks pay off. Other times, they don’t.

It’s not a taxpayer ripoff if you don’t bat 1.000; on the contrary, a
zero failure rate likely means that the program is too risk-averse.
Thus, the real question the Solyndra case poses is this: Are the
potential successes significant enough to negate the inevitable
failures?

I have a hard time answering “no.” Most electricity today is generated by coal-fired power plants, operated by monopoly, state-regulated utilities. Because they’ve been around so long, and because coal is cheap, these plants have built-in cost advantages that no new technology can overcome without help. The federal guarantees help lower the cost of capital for technologies like solar; they help spur innovation; and they help encourage private investment. These are all worthy goals.

To say “no” is also to cede the solar panel industry to China,which last year alone provided some $30 billon in subsidies for its solar industry. Over all, the American solar industry is a big success story; it now employs more people than either steel or coal, and it’s a net exporter.”

Odd that someone who likes to rap himself in the Stars and Stripes is so willing to relinquish the industries of the future to China.

Sorry – you and all of the Warmies have told us that Solar is a sure thing. All of the major power companies around the country have large solar installations.

Now you are telling us that it was a huge risk and the loss of a half billion dollars was just one of those things.

Nothing more than your BS to cover criminal activity. ALL of the money from that loan went to the upper management as they claimed bankruptcy. The management of the company took THE FIFTH and answered none of the questions.

“Wake Ian5
13 days ago
Circa 1985 ALL truth about the climate was no longer available. Of COURSE most of the world’s scientific community could “agree” with the NASA assessment becauseit was an attempt to hobble the US production engine that control most of the world’s production .”

The endgame of the climate scam is to destroy ALL industry, ALL nations, ALL democracy & ~ 95% of humanity.
The aim is a Communist/Fascist Totalitarian govt of Banksters & their cronies as feudal Lords over the few remaining peasants in the Hunger Games future paradise they’re herding us towards.

If you want to know about the real world I would suggest you get a copy of “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek. Though most liberals prefer a 2 minute video. This reading stuff were real knowledge is imparted rather than talking points is just, like man, to serious.

This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED
in Temperatues about 8000-9000 years ago.
Since then,
temps have been slowly falling as we slide
into Earth’s most powerful cyclical
CLIMATE CHANGE: Glaciation ! (ice age)
.
Look: http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

We were pulled toward the next ICE AGE !
…As Earth is still Being Pulled, in orbit, away from the Sun.
….We should still be cooling toward an ice age, but in the mid 1700’s
Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle was terminated.
the Ice Age was terminated
…abruptly…temps started to rise .

1811, Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to
Human Activities & Industrialization.
.
1856 “…the work of Eunice Foote, who three years prior
to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted
similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy
by atmospheric gases, such as CO2 and water vapor.
.
The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856
was accompanied by postulation that even modest increases
in the concentration of CO2 could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

These Research studies find the planet
continues to accumulate heat.
Year after year.

HERE is a line of empirical evidence:
that human/industry CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
**
*
Climate Myth / The Skeptic-Denier position.

There’s no empirical evidence
“There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions
are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just
concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator,
so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.”
(noted DENIER David Evans)
***

The line of empirical evidence that humans
are causing global warming is as follows:
.
We’re raising CO2 levels
.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated
from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal,
peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
.
CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of
monitoring stations across the globe.
.
Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.
In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years,
CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
.
Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
by about 100 parts per million.
.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there.
Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing
more than half of our CO2 emissions.
.
The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”,
has hovered around 43% since 1958.
CO2 traps heat
.
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements,
increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted to absorb
more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

Human Agriculture & Industry is producing 120-135 TIMES MORE CO2
than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
..
Leading
Scientists
Questioned
Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
So,
In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
.
Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
.
In 1996,
the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
which recorded similar observations.

Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
.
Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
.
What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
.
This research & paper found

“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
.
This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
using data from later satellites

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence
we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth

As I’ve stated before – CO2 is meaningless. What’s more what do you want to bet that NASA doesn’t tell us that this year is another “hottest year ever” despite the fact that all over the world temperatures have been average or below average. Last night was the 2nd coldest temperature on record for New York City.

and of course, you pick 1 local number to give yourself the illusion that your are talking about GLOBAL warming.
Did Breitbart and Daily Caller never mentions the huge heat waves and droughts around the world?

Across the middle east, N. Africa…ETC……

Sorry you missed it.

Deadly heat waves could hit South Asia this century | MIT News
news.mit.edu/2017/deadly-heat-waves-could-hit-south-asia-century-0802

I wonder why you continue to assume that real science isn’t real science?

The temperatures I said were about normal or below were from South African, Central Africa, Israel, France, Brisbane Australia, Shanghai, the west coast, central US and east coast.

I wonder what is going through your head when you use a link to an article that says that MIT determined that heat wave could happen in decades if nothing is done? As I noted before – NASA has manufactured temperature records since 1980-1990 and NO scientist’s research can be trusted when the data they are working with is faulty.

” Deadly heat waves could hit South Asia” – Do you understand what the word “could” signifies?

You continue to offer links that do not work. “Oops, this site is not available”.

Erbao Township, Turpan, Xinjiang had a previous high of 49.9C. So you think that .6 degrees C show something?

Ahwaz International Airport Iran “The highest daily average high temperature is 115°F on July 27.” Did you note that word “AVERAGE”?

Buraimi – When I send them a message why does the Omani weather bureau tell me that the hottest temperature ever recorded in May was 34.5 degrees C? And that it never hit 50.8 degrees C anywhere in the entire country of Oman in May of 2017? That the highest temperatures occur at the end of July and rarely exceed 38C?

The Thames never froze over from 800-1400 AD. It only commonly froze over during the little ice age.

This is the same Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy
…with a record of FALSE STATEMENTS ON CLIMATE…many of which they have been forced to retract….

OOOPS !
time for a little CROW EATING CONTEST….my bet is on Spencer !
FROM THOSE LEADING
CLIMATE
CHANGE
DENIERS.

The same 2 that Global Warming would END by 2000
.
A STUNNING ADMISSION:
The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy?
—both leading deniers?
—reported just last month that the UAH data shows a
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”
NO PAUSE !
NO HIATUS !
sure as hell, NO COOLING !
SPENCER:
“my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching
between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is
undergoing SPURIOUS COOLING because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15
satellite which has a decaying orbit…”
“

Why do you make these claims without a link? And if you do not have a link where do you get this sort of information? From some True Believer site? The fact is that YOU have to both read and understand any of these papers before you start talking about them. I’m not surprised at all that you talk about things that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

Firstly, CO2 was suggested as a gas that might cause atmospheric heating by Svante August Arrhenius. He performed NO experiments himself but relied on some experiments that had to do with measuring the color of moonlight done by others. He was attempting to theorize why we had ice ages. That was circa 1886 I believe. Ever since that time people have unsuccessfully attempted to use his theory to show any number of things.

The story in a nutshell: Like most histories, this one begins far back. People had long suspected that human activity could change the local climate. For example, ancient Greeks and 19th-century Americans debated how cutting down forests might bring more rainfall to a region, or perhaps less. But greater shifts of climate happened all by themselves. The discovery in the mid 19th century that there had been ice ages in the distant past proved that climate could change radically over much of the globe, a change vastly beyond anything mere humans seemed able to cause. So what did cause global climate change — was it variations in the heat of the Sun? Volcanoes erupting clouds of smoke? The raising and lowering of mountain ranges, which diverted wind patterns and ocean currents? Or could it be changes in the composition of the air itself? In 1824 a French scientist had explained that Earth’s temperature would be much lower if the planet lacked an atmosphere, and in 1859 an English scientist discovered that the chief gases that trapped heat were water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2).

In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea.
.
By burning fossil fuels such as coal,
thus adding CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere, humanity would raise the planet’s average temperature.

This “greenhouse effect,” as it later came to be called, was only one of many speculations about climate change, and not the most plausible.
.
The few scientists who paid attention to Arrhenius used clumsy experiments and rough approximations to argue that our emissions could not change the planet. Most people thought it was already obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast global climate cycles, which were governed by a benign “balance of nature.”

In the 1930s, measurements showed that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century.

Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, probably regional, with unknown causes.

Only one lone voice, the English steam engineer and amateur scientist Guy Stewart Callendar, published arguments that greenhouse warming was underway. If so, he and most others thought it would be beneficial.

In the 1950s, Callendar’s claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with far better techniques and calculations than earlier generations could have deployed. This research was made possible by a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies that wanted to know more about the weather and geophysics in general.

Not only might such knowledge be crucial in future battles, but scientific progress could bring a nation prestige in the Cold War competition. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude assumptions, CO2 might indeed build up in the atmosphere and bring warming. In 1960 painstaking measurements of the level of the gas in the atmosphere by Charles Keeling, a young scientist with an obsession for accuracy, drove home the point. The level was in fact rising year by year.

During the next decade a few scientists worked up simple mathematical models of the planet’s climate system and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly sensitive. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollen and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a century or two. This finding was reinforced by more elaborate models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, an offshoot of a government-funded effort to use the new digital computers to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. Calculations made in the late 1960s suggested that in the next century, as CO2 built up in the atmosphere, average temperatures would rise a few degrees. But the models were preliminary, and the 21st century seemed far away.

In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of any human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate change turned into anxious concern. A few degrees of warming no longer sounded benign, and as scientists looked into possible impacts they noticed alarming possibilities of rising sea levels and possible damage to agriculture.

Meanwhile a few scientists pointed out that human activity was putting not only CO2 but ever more dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s; was pollution the cause? (Decades later, scientists would confirm that soaring industrial pollution had in fact contributed to temporary Northern Hemisphere cooling.) The public media were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes foreboding a catastrophic new ice age, sometimes quoting expert assurances that nothing much would change. Study panels of scientists, first in the U.S. and then internationally, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The main thing scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system. The only policy action they recommended was to fund more research to find out what might really happen. Research activity did accelerate using state-of-the-art computers, international programs to assemble weather data, and adventurous expeditions across oceans and ice caps to gather information on past climates.

Most scientists thought a disastrous cooling was unlikely, if only because dust and smog fall out of the atmosphere in weeks, whereas CO2 would linger for centuries. Computer models, improving at the breakneck pace of computing in general, consistently showed warming. With worries about climate change rising, in 1979 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences convened a committee of experts to hash out what could reliably be said. They reached a consensus that when CO2 reached double the pre-industrial level, sometime in the following century, the planet would probably warm up by about 3°C (5.4°F), plus or minus a degree or two.

Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a large shift. According to the new “chaos” theories, in a complex system a shift might happen suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland ice sheet. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past, on a scale not of centuries but decades.

The improved computer models also began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts now predicted that global warming could bring not only rising sea levels but unprecedented droughts, storm floods, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over how much CO2 humanity might be adding to the atmosphere through deforestation. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for still larger and more coherent research programs. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges.

One unexpected discovery was that the levels of other “greenhouse gases” such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons were rising explosively. Suddenly scientists found that global warming could come twice as fast as expected — in their children’s lifetimes or even their own.

If there’s one place you can get valid science it’s from the ancient Greeks. One major volcanic eruption such as any one of the 50 that occur every year among the 1,500 known volcanoes can spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has made to date. But man is a demon to people like you. I’ve even seen your kind telling us that “depopulation” is the real answer. Of course not white people – mainly those bad feriners.

I have read Arrhenius paper which was in German and he said nothing of the sort. Why do you make such false claims all the time? He performed NO experiments because he didn’t have the time or money to do so. His paper was a thought experiment on why ice ages occurred and he used a paper from another study concerning the spectrum of moonlight. None of this had anything to do with warming.

Don’t give us this “subtle changes in orbit” because the
Milankovitch Cycles are not subtle in the least.

Not only have not one single computer model predicted as little as 5 years into the future accurately but they cannot even be used to tell you what happened 5 years into the past since we have actual data on that.

In fact he did nothing of the kind. He performed NO experiments to verify his ideas and he said he didn’t have the money to do so. Instead he relied upon Langley’s papers on the spectrum of moonlight taken on the full moon throughout a year. He even applied “reduction values” rather indiscriminately to Langley’s data. In his paper he stated that the temperature of the Moon was nearly the same as the Earth. He also assumed that CO2 was a constant and his experiments actually had more to do with the strange effects of “aqueous vapor” which he could not really understand.

In fact the title of his paper pretty much said it all: “The influence of carbonic acid in the air on the temperature of the ground”. What? No atmospheric heat?

This has NOTHING to do with “man-made global warming” And while this is an important effect the only REAL close match between heating and cooling has turned out to be a combination of sunspots and cosmic rays from outer space.

“1965
American Association for the Advancement of Science delivers to President Johnson, Research Report & Warning, with Spot On accurate projections about Climate change for 2015.”

This is a huge F-ing lie. The report SAID: “that within a few years, climate models would be able to reasonably project future global surface temperature changes.”

In fact such projections weren’t made for 10 years and his predictions were as much as 200% off. While NASA states that his END prediction and the present temperatures are equal, the entire temperature data for the LAST 40 years is a blithering lie that doesn’t match the satellite temperature data at all. NASA has even shown huge temperature increases in central Africa where they do not even have weather stations. Dr. Roy Spencer the head of NASA’s weather/Earth temperature satellite program states that there has been no average temperature increases for the last 38 years while NASA has been claiming that there are record temperature years every single year for the last ten years.

In short – you know nothing and never did. You read some True Believer website and then make these rediculous statements without even know what they are.

1.
In 1824 a French scientist had explained that Earth’s temperature would be much lower if the planet lacked an atmosphere,
and
2.
in 1859 an English scientist discovered that the chief gases that trapped heat were water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2).
3.
In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea.
By burning fossil fuels such as coal, thus adding CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere, humanity would raise the planet’s average temperature.
4.
This “greenhouse effect,” as it later came to be called, was only one of many speculations about climate change, and not the most plausible.
5.
The few scientists who paid attention to Arrhenius used clumsy experiments and rough approximations to argue that our emissions could not change the planet.
* 6.*
Most people thought it was already obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast global climate cycles, which were governed by a benign “balance of nature.”
7.
In the 1930s, measurements showed that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century.
8.
Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, probably regional, with unknown causes.
9.
Only one lone voice, the English steam engineer and amateur scientist Guy Stewart Callendar, published arguments that greenhouse warming was underway. If so, he and most others thought it would be beneficial.
9.
In the 1950s, Callendar’s claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with far better techniques and calculations than earlier generations could have deployed. This research was made possible by a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies that wanted to know more about the weather and geophysics in general. Not only might such knowledge be crucial in future battles, but scientific progress could bring a nation prestige in the Cold War competition. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude assumptions, CO2 might indeed build up in the atmosphere and bring warming. In 1960 painstaking measurements of the level of the gas in the atmosphere by Charles Keeling, a young scientist with an obsession for accuracy, drove home the point. The level was in fact rising year by year.

During the next decade a few scientists worked up simple mathematical models of the planet’s climate system and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly sensitive. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollen and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a century or two. This finding was reinforced by more elaborate models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, an offshoot of a government-funded effort to use the new digital computers to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. Calculations made in the late 1960s suggested that in the next century, as CO2 built up in the atmosphere, average temperatures would rise a few degrees. But the models were preliminary, and the 21st century seemed far away.

In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of any human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate change turned into anxious concern. A few degrees of warming no longer sounded benign, and as scientists looked into possible impacts they noticed alarming possibilities of rising sea levels and possible damage to agriculture.

Meanwhile a few scientists pointed out that human activity was putting not only CO2 but ever more dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s; was pollution the cause? (Decades later, scientists would confirm that soaring industrial pollution had in fact contributed to temporary Northern Hemisphere cooling.) The public media were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes foreboding a catastrophic new ice age, sometimes quoting expert assurances that nothing much would change. Study panels of scientists, first in the U.S. and then internationally, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The main thing scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system. The only policy action they recommended was to fund more research to find out what might really happen. Research activity did accelerate using state-of-the-art computers, international programs to assemble weather data, and adventurous expeditions across oceans and ice caps to gather information on past climates.

Most scientists thought a disastrous cooling was unlikely, if only because dust and smog fall out of the atmosphere in weeks, whereas CO2 would linger for centuries. Computer models, improving at the breakneck pace of computing in general, consistently showed warming. With worries about climate change rising, in 1979 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences convened a committee of experts to hash out what could reliably be said. They reached a consensus that when CO2 reached double the pre-industrial level, sometime in the following century, the planet would probably warm up by about 3°C (5.4°F), plus or minus a degree or two.

Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a large shift. According to the new “chaos” theories, in a complex system a shift might happen suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland ice sheet. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past, on a scale not of centuries but decades.

The improved computer models also began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts now predicted that global warming could bring not only rising sea levels but unprecedented droughts, storm floods, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over how much CO2 humanity might be adding to the atmosphere through deforestation. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for still larger and more coherent research programs. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges.

One unexpected discovery was that the levels of other “greenhouse gases” such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons were rising explosively. Suddenly scientists found that global warming could come twice as fast as expected — in their children’s lifetimes or even their own. Gathering at a 1985 conference in Austria, climate experts from 29 nations agreed to call on the world’s governments to consider forging international agreements to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Policy makers ignored the advice, and the public scarcely noticed.

By the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Some climate scientists predicted that an unprecedented global warming would become apparent around the year 2000. Their worries finally caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. Computer modeler James Hansen made headlines when he told a Congressional hearing and journalists that greenhouse warming was almost certainly underway. And a major international meeting of scientists in Toronto called on governments to undertake active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The response was vehement. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation began to spend millions of dollars on lobbying, advertising, and “reports” that mimicked scientific publications, striving to convince the public that there was no problem at all. Environmental groups, less wealthy but more enthusiastic, helped politicize the issue with urgent cries of alarm. The many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made room for limitless debate over what actions, if any, governments should take.
*****

To start in,
for the scientific story,
a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate.
If you are interested especially in the social connections of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government:
The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation.
For basic information and recent developments, see the page of links and bibliography.

1. Surface weather station measurements CLEARLY register Warming for over a century !
2. Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming
3. The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory
(this cannot be explained by solar variability)
4. Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 3000 meters
5. Sea level rise…at an increasing rate.
6. Gravitometric measurements of Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss
7. Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating
8. Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years.
9. The rise of the tropopause
10. Poleward migration of species
11. Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures
12. Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world
13. Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost
14. Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska
15. Changes in ocean circulation as predicted by climate models, for example, with temperatures rising more quickly overland
16. Disintegration of permafrost coastlines in the arctic
17. Changes in the altitude of the stratosphere
18. An energy imbalance – the earth is receiving more energy than it emits (Google: Hansen 2005 abstract)
19. Poleward movement of the jet streams (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
20. Widening of the tropical belt (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
Note – Some of the evidence listed above are unique to CO2 warming – the carbon “fingerprint”.
.
“Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who,
three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research,
conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases,
such as CO2 and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856
was accompanied by postulation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO2 would result in significant atmospheric warming.”

The total number of “scientists” that have signed off on the IPCC latest paper are 2500. As it turns out a large percentage of those are not scientists but politicians. And we’re back down to 600 scientists for and 31,000+ having signed the Oregon Petition.

The Wikipedia entry you’ve quoted does a pretty great job of debunking it. Once again, do you actually read your own references, or you cutting and pasting the cherry-picked quotes of others?

“Robinson asserted in 2008 that the petition has over 31,000 signatories, with 9,000 of these holding a PhD degree.[1] Most signatories with a PhD hold their degree in engineering.” Nothing climate-related

“Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”.[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake”.”

“…although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of “areas of expertise”, it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. “This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant””

Other point’s are the basic logical fallacies of ‘big number to impress’ and falsely ascribed authoritativeness.
31k compared to how many b.s. earned a year in the u.s. much less over a 20 or 40 year career and world wide. It’s a laughably small %, even if all the names were somewhat close to climate related expertise.

“Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.”

There are good reasons why there is such a consensus:nearly two hundred years worth of research which includes every alternative hypothesis. That’s how science works.

Further, there is a body of research showing how interested parties funded the ‘debate’.

So, all that’s really left are conspiracy theories.

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

More total and utter rubbish. Out of 4,000 scientists polled 37 said that there definitely was AGW. 2 said that there was definitely NO AGW. The rest said that there was insufficient data to tell one way or the other. They ONLY counted the 39 that made positive statement and even reported THAT percentage incorrectly since they must have been as bright as Robert.

Considering that you are not a Vietnam Vet and I have produced several stories about vets being spit on as well as myself I would say you know absolutely nothing about it except you think you are somehow on the moral high ground by producing a book written by a man who wasn’t there.

I am a real scientist and you aren’t. I have the credentials to back it up and you don’t. I understand scientific papers and how to read them and more importantly how to find them and you don’t. YOUR response is to cite a kid’s movie produce by the American Association for the Advancement of Science under Obama in 2014 which is nothing more than a propaganda piece. You always seem to have a tight grasp on the subject.

You want citations when any ass could find them with the first Google search.

Yes, you’ve “..produced several stories…”. Written decades after the fact, not in agreement with facts on the ground, nor supported by reporting done at the time.

Then you double down making assertions you have no way of supporting, personal attacks,

Then, you’ve also become an expert in climate science. Again with no supportable evidence showing why we should accept your word for either professed expertise or the science. And you double down on that by giving us 4 links to a blog, 2 political and business magazines, and a newspaper opinion piece. As though those are the type of sources scientists would use.

Yeah, everyone that reads this stuff can see your moronic behavior. Those who were there don’t know anything about it and those who weren’t do. You really are one miserable piece of human waste aren’t you?

I have shown you that NONE of your references are anything other than a pack of lies. I have described to you how CO2 not only isn’t a “greenhouse gas” but couldn’t be because of the way thermal energy moves about in the troposphere.

But you without one bit of training can tell us differently. And why have you told us what you meant when you wrote, “I was flying into airbases in ’67”?

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

Thanks !
A ten yr old movie starring several personages who haven’t been publishing in the field certainly corrects the record.
/’s

But does do a grand job of displaying an inability to use 6th grade tools for determining the quality of a resource.

C.R.A.A.P. TEST

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

Well, obviously, it’s not me, it’s the we –WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Thanks for your continuing demonstration of an inability to find reputable sources.

Here’s a guide to assist your further endeavors :

C.R.A.A.P. TEST

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

I’ve not bothered as you set up your own analysis and assertions which were so laughable as to not need comment.

But, to simplify, my experience matches that of the the source I quoted.

You’ve chosen to rely on anecdotal reminisces written decades after the fact rather than research based on primary documents.

You spending a lot of effort trying to argue a point that didn’t support your main point, which is that the climate science analysis isn’t an accurate representation of what is observed seem pretty consistent, though.

Meaning you haven’t any idea at all. Well, the fact is that “climate scientists” are self proclaimed. There are so many different sciences involved in “climate science” that no one can know more than tiny percentages of the workings of a system that has carried itself from everything from the birth of life that changed the atmosphere from 60% Nitrogen and 39% CO2 to the carbon reduction from life to our present 60% Nitrogen and 39% Oxygen. In other words – the atmospheric chemistry changed so violently that the pretense that trace gases could have any significant effect is preposterous.

From continental motions that had all of the land area in one super-continent on several occasions to many continents walking about all over the globe. From an asteroid collisions with the Earth so violent that it destroyed almost the entire reptile species to today where CO2 had reduced to the point where photosynthesis was about to cease, giving us another extinction event. The continental motions gave us such extreme conditions that we can’t even guess though a reasonable estimate would be +1298 F in the region of the Chixculub impact site to the massive global cooling that killed even the water borne dinosaurs in the oceans.

That someone as puny as Dr. Michael Mann could think that he could predict anything including what he is going to have for dinner tomorrow is pretty funny.

The release of stored carbon in the form of fossil fuels has done nothing for this planet but improve conditions. More people are living better than ever before not only because of having access to more energy but to the improved plant growth from increased CO2 is now feeding more people than existed on this planet just 10 years ago.

You as a liberal should be telling us that we should stop allowing third world countries to develop. To refuse them the right to energy, food and water. What your kind have always referred to as “Ethical Depopulation”. Murder multimillions for fear that they might impact your lifestyle despite every fact to the contrary.

Or as another of your liberal cohorts said, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population so we must enlist the pastors to convince them otherwise.”

I particularly like the one that is a degree is social sciences so that you know how to convince people of a false premise.

One would expect that if someone were going to use examples they would at least bother to read them to discover that they’re pure BS. But then bloodsuckers usually don’t have anything other than sucking on their mind.

Pretty funny that you are attempting to disqualify extremely high level scientists by saying it was organized by someone you don’t like. Let’s see what happens to Mann. Then most of the people here will laugh in your face. Then you can tell us that the judge was an ideologue.

Organized by Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine…an organization that is one based on ideology not science. Go look it up yourself and apply some basic critical thinking. Its silly “Journal” of American Physicians and Surgeons masquerades as a scientific journal but is nothing of the sort…Listed by Quackwatch as unreliable and untrustworthy…a purveyor of utter nonsense.

Perhaps you can become President Trump’s science adviser since he doesn’t seem to be able to understand the papers written that show that NASA purposely and with aforethought manufactured false data. This was proven by simple mathematical analysis and the paper was peer reviewed. Because of this false data NO statement by any organization that used that data is reliable. And ALL of your quoted organizations used the NASA counterfeit data.

From your screaming and crying defense of global warming I don’t expect you to have sufficient mathematical ability to make proper change for a dollar, but you can show it to someone in your family that does.

My dear Wake – you have been shown this unscientific paper residing at a blog site is nonsense at least three times by three separate people. Why do you persist in claiming that it is peer-reviewed and in some way credible?

Move along. Find a new argument – because you’re losing face each time you come back with this one.

I love it when you would like to “disprove” a scientific study by quoting a political site. That’s almost as funny as you making up entire things I was supposed to have said. I have worked directly in science for over 40 years and your qualifications are that you read DeSmogBlog which is the weirdest bunch I’ve ever seen outside of a zoo.

More intentionally misleading rubbish. You provided a single link to an unpublished paper written by well known contrarians, posted to the silly, amateurish ‘tropical hot spot research’ website. No it is not peer-reviewed, published research, and regardless, it does not demonstrate that NASA purposefully manufactured false data.

How is it that YOU know what the positions of these institutions are? All of them use the temperature data from NASA which was falsified. No research that has used that data is reliable. No claims based on those numbers are true.

AND IF IT does NOT goose step to YOUR ideological certainty…it must be faked and fiddled with.

and
research team after research team have tried to prove THAT PREMISE, THAT truly asinine accusation

((( …and ALL have FAILED )))
….trying to grasp the immeasurable notoriety and wealth proving the accusation accurate
………..instead they ALL added to the credibility of GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE….

BUT still you use this meaningless crutch to sustain your DENIAL !

Temperature DATA is fudged, fiddled with…manipulated !
WHAT ? Ground based Digital Data from 155 different nations
is fudged ?

World Newspapers and Media giants (SEEKING TO MAKE A LOT OF HEADLINES AND A LOT OF MONEY…proving NOAA & NASA fudged the data)))
along with private investigators.
…………………..****..found over 30,000 privately
owned and operated
DIGITAL GROUND WEATHER STATIONS
Outside nearly EVERY city and town on Earth…..
Farm Bureaus and Coops,
Trucking Companies, Bus Companies,
Ocean Shipping companies, corporate farms,
free ports and Unaffiliated air fields,
monasteries, wineries…
..
tens of millions of data sets per year……
most going back over 20 years.
………….and when the math is ALL done
.
((not models for you to fixate and ventilate about))
.
the math…….down to .01 degree of NASA’s and NOAA’s figures
…..after all of your wasted spittle and exasperated exhales of CO2
………YOUR CLAIMS WERE WRONG !

That is why the Scientific community has PEER REVIEW
…mandatory PUBLICATION IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
…..and required REPLICATION before any hypothesis is more widely accepted.
…..

The line of empirical evidence that humans
are causing global warming is as follows:
.
We’re raising CO2 levels
.
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated
from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal,
peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
.
CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of
monitoring stations across the globe.
.
Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.
In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years,
CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
.
Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
by about 100 parts per million.
.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there.
Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing
more than half of our CO2 emissions.
.
The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”,
has hovered around 43% since 1958.
CO2 traps heat
.
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements,
increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted to absorb
more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

Human / Industry is producing 135 TIMES MORE CO2
than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
..
Leading
Scientists
Questioned
Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
So,
In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
.
Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
.
In 1996,
the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
which recorded similar observations.

Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
.
Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
.
What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
.
This research & paper found

“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
.
This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
using data from later satellites

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence
we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth

Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the authors to conclude that
*
*** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
by global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
.
This Entire planet is accumulating heat
.
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
our climate accumulates heat.
.
The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
land and ice.
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
.
Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
and heat capacity of the troposphere.
Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
were also included.
.
Figure 4:
Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
.
Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
rate of 190,260 gigawatts
with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt,
imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
What about after 2003?
.
A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
.
Google (von Schuckmann 2009).

Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
consistent with other determinations of
the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
The planet continues to accumulate heat.
.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
by satellite and surface measurements.
The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth

Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the Research authors to conclude that
**** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

You are getting tiresome Kooi – CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmosphere retaining heat. The only real source is H2O in its three phases which is on a world wide average 100 times more common than CO2. And on a real comparison – power generators are distributed around cities and most of the world’s cities are on waterways meaning that the relative humidity is more like 40% around where CO2 is being generated. Man’s addition to the NATURAL production and destruction of CO2 is only 25% and CO2 is a trace gas to begin with. Furthermore CO2 has only THREE very narrow absorption bands and only ONE of them is available to absorb energy. And that band had absorbed every single joule with CO2 levels at between 200-250 ppm. You can worship at the altar of Man-Made Global Warming if you like but don’t try to tell thinking individuals about things you know nothing about.

Leading
Scientists
Questioned
Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
So,
In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
.
***********Google: ********Iris Satellite Research Abstract
.
In 1996,
the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
which recorded similar observations.
.
***********Google: ********IMG Satellite Research Abstract
.
Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period
.
***********Google ********(Harries 2001 research abstract)
.
What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
.
This research & paper found
“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
.
This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
using data from later satellites
.
***********Google ********(Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
***********Google ******** (Chen 2007 Research Astract )

Is there something that prevents you from understanding what I wrote? “And that band had absorbed every single joule with CO2 levels at between 200-250 ppm.” Imagine that – they found missing wavelengths.

Where is this satellite data that shows some sort of decreasing radiation with increasing CO2?

Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
.
Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
.
What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
.
This research & paper found

“direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
.
This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
using data from later satellites

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
.
Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
Hence
we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
.
Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
of infrared radiation returning to earth

Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
.
A regional study over the central Alps found that
downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
enhanced greenhouse effect
.
Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
.
Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
.
Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
.
The results lead the authors to conclude that
*
*** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
by global warming.”
.
Figure 3:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
.
This Entire planet is accumulating heat
.
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
our climate accumulates heat.
.
The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
land and ice.
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
.
Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
and heat capacity of the troposphere.
Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
were also included.
.
Figure 4:
Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
.
Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
.
Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
.

A bit about kooki Rick’s flagrant abuse of sanity. NASA launched, not IRIS satellite, but the IRIS instrument, aboard the NIMBUS 6 satellite … Sheesh, he doesn’t know the difference between a spectrometer and a satellite that holds the spectrometer … Anyhow, IRIS recorded some … not all, but some of the infrared spectrum that we care about. The infrared spectra, of concern, the far infrared, is 100/cm to 650/cm, 15㎛ to 100㎛.

The IMG instrument that was carried aboard the Japan ADEOS-1 satellite, was sensitive to 600/cm [16㎛] to 3000/cm [3㎛], missing from 600/cm to 100/cm, or from 16㎛ to 100㎛ in wavelength.

Each of the ≈9-month intervals is not a “climate-length” observation… and doesn’t include a full annual cycle, or even compatible segments of the sampled annual cycles. The IMG instrument looked down from October-June, and the IRIS, April to January. Furthermore, the were about 27 years apart.

Harries 2001 makes unsubstantiated claims.

Harries, John E., et al. 2001 “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997.”Nature

They have test flown an instrument that will fly in low-earth orbit. They will only last months in these orbits so the plan is to launch new ones when required. These devices (damn my concussion ravaged memory can’r remember their name – CRAK?) consist of a silicon wafer with layers of silicon grown to the wavelengths under discussion. This makes these devices an almost perfect blackbody in the low IR. This will make the measurement of radiation from the Earth accurate to almost totality.

IT’s Magic to an IDEOLOGUE who hid behind the School Room door….Sophomore, High School.

Low Energy Short Wave Infra Red Radiation is an Earth Emission..
..
AFTER HEAT BUILDS UP from incoming SOLAR LONG WAVE RADIATION….which crosses the Atmosphere as if it were invisible…and enters our Earth system.

Wrong again. IR is produced as it passes through the molecules of the atmosphere. Every time a photon passes through a gas molecule, the photon loses energy and it’s wave length gets longer. Remember it’s UV that gives the sun burn not IR.

Not zero. But he doesn’t understand heat transfer through conduction and radiation perfectly. Sunlight emissions are in the 350 nm to 800 or so nm region. O2 absorbs in a wide spectrum around 250 nm and N2 around 300 nm. CO2 is in the lower IR but as a trace gas it isn’t worth speaking about.

So sunlight strikes the Earth after losing about half if its strength from reflection and atmospheric absorption almost entirely from H2O. This is converted from high energy light to lower energy IR though the mass of Earth – 70% of which is oceans or lakes and 30% ground with higher density per unit of volume.

The Earth is a pretty well kept environment and man has little to no ability to effect anything other than purely local conditions.

They are either wholly absorbed or not. Their specific energy being related to the necessary quantized energy related to a change in physical state, be it molecular vibrational state or promotion of an electron to a higher energy orbital state.

The IR comes from the bulk temperature of the atmosphere.

It appears that you are trying to claim that downwelling IR results the Suns energy that changes wavelength on the way to the surface.

Given that the atmosphere radiates more energy to the surface than that received from the Sun, you describe a physical impossibility. Quite an achievement. Bravo!

You should take a Physics class. Then you would know as much about photons as I do. According to you the photon gives up no energy yet can increase the energy state of a molecule or atom. I guess we don’t need the sun if we believe you.

While this is not completely accurate it is more accurate than your idea. Photons do not “pass through” molecules on their way to the ground and lose energy.

A high energy photon is so close to massless it simply goes between most gases. Raleigh scattering is one of the few ways that photons lose energy on their way to the ground. Other than this you don’t have photons bouncing about in the air.

Reflection doesn’t lose energy and approximately a third of the emissions from the Sun that strike the outer atmosphere is reflected by N2, O2, O3 and high altitude clouds.

70% of the Earth is covered with oceans and the sunlight that strikes it is in general absorbed by matter such as plankton in the first 10 meters. Land masses in general absorb all light frequencies. Ice is highly reflective. High altitude clouds are composed of solid phase H2O and that’s why they are so reflective. Energy that isn’t reflected is in general absorbed.

Kooi is correct. Half of the energy that strikes the outer atmosphere makes it to the ground and is absorbed. This heats the oceans and land masses. This in turn with a far lower energy per mass emits in the lower IR. The gases he mentons indeed absorb this lower IR but all but H2O are in such low amounts that they can be completely ignored. CO2 is the largest minority gas and it composes on 1/100th the average H2O levels. Moreover the absorption frequencies of CO2 are sharply limited and in an area of the lower IR where there is very little energy.

Sunlight in its higher frequencies (known as light) show upon the Earth. Almost all of the energy is in the Ultra Violet (very little), visable light and high infrared. Approximately 30% is reflected by the atmosphere, clouds or the ground (70% of the Earth is covered by water and water is weakly reflective).

Some 19% of the incoming radiation is absorbed either by clouds or the atmosphere. And the remaining 51% of the incoming radiation is absorbed by the Earth – the oceans absorb most of it and the land the rest.

During the day when the energy absorbed and contained by the Earth exceeds the incoming energy the Earth radiates its energy in the far infrared bands. At night there is little to no incoming energy and so it emits throughout the night in the same energy bands.

What is important to know is that because the Earth never gets very warm the energy released is always in the low infrared. This is outside of the absorption lines of most of the atmospheric gases. The one exception is water which is in the atmosphere in all three phases – vapor, water and ice.

Because of this heat is not carried in the Earth into outer space via radiation. The radiated IR from the Earth is captured almost immediately by H2O almost immediately and is then moved throughout the atmosphere via conduction and convection. Or more crudely – by molecule containing heat bumping into other molecules and transferring part of their energy to them. The conduction of heat also knocks the molecules further apart – the air become lighter and rises. Cooler air replaces it through convection or the movement of air due to heat and density.

As you can see – under these conditions in the atmosphere ALL of the gasses are on the same footing and it doesn’t matter in the least what gas it is.

I agree with lots of your statement but not H2O. Once H2O(v) gets to above 30,000 feet there is not a lot of other molecules for the heat to be absorbed ergo that a lot of the heat from condensation drifts out into space.

H2O is not a GHG it’s the planet’s heat exchanger. Water vapor goes well above 30,000 feet and then condences into micro ice crystals. At the point of sublimation heat is released and more than half of the heat energy is returned to space.

You don’t know much about Physics? If you took Science your first observational experiment is watching an ice cube melt and that water go to boil. In Physics we had to solve for how much 1 cc of H20 to evaporate and go to the clouds to condense back into a 1 cc rain drop. Go study some real Science not spewing propaganda.

Dude do you know how hard it to fight with your phone when it decides for you. Or the fact that the comments section on my phone is really small. And editing on my phone is a nightmare. As my Freshman Comp Prof told us. You need to exercise linguistic humility.

No Science but plenty of fallacies.
I bet you don’t know these 4 Science Giants or what their contributions where. They where all treated with out respect from people like you.
1. John Harrison
2. Michael Faraday

3. Gregor Mendel
4. Georges Lemaitre.

And people like you had Antoine Lavoisier executed for being a Scientist

Charles – either answer his question or don’t respond. You have shown you’re not very bright at physics yourself by trying to reference your “professors”. And its not Physics or Science, these are not proper nouns that require capitalization unless you are referring specifically to a course in school.

R002 was not asking you how to boil water. He was asking how energy was lost to space.

In the troposphere energy radiates from the surface and is captured very rapidly by water vapor which is this thing called “humidity”.

Once the radiated energy is captured the movement of this energy into the stratosphere is almost entirely by conduction and convection. Using conduction all gases are pretty much the same so additional CO2 would make no difference.

My estimate is that all radiated energy (except for some holes in the absorption spectrum such as the 10 nm hole) is captured in about 1 meter though one authority, whose studies I’ve read, estimated 10 meters from surface level. I calculated the number of CO2 molecules per cubic meter and the emission spectrum of the Earth and it appears that 10 meters would be 100% absorption whereas I am assuming that once energy is captured these molecules rise and are replaced with other CO2 molecules with a dearth of energy. Since this mixing would require time perhaps the 10 meter estimation is better. And since the troposphere is 17 kilometers deep in mid-latitudes it doesn’t really matter. It does demonstrate that radiation really only occurs at the surface interface and heat is moved via conduction.

In the stratosphere the energy could not be lost without impinging sunlight. That is – molecules absorb additional energy until they reach the stage at which they can radiate not just the energy from the Earth but the additional energy from the Sun. This is plainly shown by the temperature curve in the stratosphere being inverted – that is, as gas rises it becomes warmer. This is peculiar to the stratosphere.

Since radiation occurs in all directions some of this energy is returned to the tropopause. But the absorption and emission frequencies are identical so the almost entire radiation comes from O2 and N2 and hence is absorbed by N2 and O2 to work its way out as many times as necessary for the radiated energy to make it to outer space.

98 or 99% of the energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun ends up back in space. The rest of it is used to make plant materials. CO2 has to be split into carbon plant material and free O2 and this requires energy.

H2O absorbs energy both coming in and going from sunlight down and IR out. It is the only greenhouse gas to actually speak of because the quantities of others are too low to bother with.

Both of you are arguing points that you aren’t clear on. So I would like you to stop calling each other stupid while you both are simply unclear on the subject.

I know there is a near two hundred year body of research that has explored, discussed, analyzed every hypothesis that has been brought forward.

I know the consilience of evidence points to one hypothesis.

I know that there is a virtual 100% consensus among practicing climate scientists based on that near two hundred year body of research.

And I know that the world -minus a few comment threads – has analyzed, developed, and put into action military, public, and corp. plans and policies taking responsibility for our behavior’s effect on the ecosystem.

1. There is NOT a two hundred year body of research what causes the climate. There isn’t even that long a body of official knowledge of weather prediction.
2. IF the evidence pointed to ONE hypothesis it would have been tested. It has and doesn’t work. The computer models using the MANY hypothesis of climate not only cannot accurately predict the future, using the accurate measured data they cannot even predict the past!

This article is making assumptions that simply aren’t true. Look, during the age of Dinosaurs the climate was very much like today and we had over 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere as CO2.

It is thought that the initial atmosphere was some 40% CO2 and the Earth was actually cooler then, since the Sun gained heat as it aged.

Remember that any of these studies are only the opinions of the scientists who are writing them and unfortunately with the inaccurate temperature data that NASA has been passing out you can’t trust anything about temperature to be accurate.

This might appear to you as a slight temperature increase but in fact all it shows is that 1998 was a hotter than normal year and that the summer of 2015 was hotter than normal. All of the rest is nothing more than normal chaotic temperature changes. And despite these higher variations the average temperature actually averages to no change.

After Germany surrendered the SS did not. The SS went through neighborhoods and any civilians that were flying a white flag to identify themselves as non-combatants the SS murdered. Prisoners that were held in SS prison camps were murdered. This is the sort of thing that you warmies think would be appropriate. Your “Sieg Heil” is precisely the same – without an ounce of knowledge you follow your leader. You and Robert snap to attention instantly and proclaim your allegiance to a NASA leadership that has been shown to be liars and criminals. You and Robert, are saying that all of the science out there that shows that AGW is not occurring is “cherry picking” the data. You proclaim the 2500 scientists on the IPCC (most of whom are not scientists at all but politicians, and a large percentage of the real scientists who disagree with AGW) to be far more important than the over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition including over 9,000 PhD’s and at least three Nobel Prize winners. That papers written by math experts and peer reviewed by members of the EPA and a Fulbright Scholar is cherry picking. What became of those Nazi’s? Most of them were finally murdered by their own. What do you suppose will happen to you now that no money is going into AGW “studies” – read phony papers? Very soon like the SS you will be left without your extremist leader and you won’t have anything to do but run around claiming that the world isn’t like it really is.

Thanks for that rant. It’s not every day that one comes across a genuine lunatic on Disqus. It seems remarkable that you claim that established science is in error, yet you also state you are unable to read a graph.

He’s a scientist too, don’t you know, except for the blatant contradiction in his commenting history:

I got a job working on cars on a used car lot at 14 and worked for a year an a half and the owner paid me off with a used car. Then I could drive across town to work the entire time after school until 10 pm washing dishes at a restaurant. When I turned 17 1/2 I dropped out of school and went into the Air Force. VFW. The training I got there allowed me to work my way up to an electronics engineer better than most.

What’s even funnier is that you don’t even know what “established science” means. As a scientist I have watched people like you attempt to teach your ideas of science to the rest of us. Since you are a complete idiot not only does that not work but it clues in all of those around you that have enough education to see that you are a total ass. But carry on. This same thing happened when you fools tried to get Hillary elected. The more you spoke the more people turned against you and your asinine ideas. Now we have a study showing that Hillary’s 2 million vote “popular vote” was really a 3.5 million fake vote loss. PLEASE continue to talk.

“the over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition including over 9,000 PhD’s and at least three Nobel Prize winners.”

The Oregon Petition:
1. is not fact-checked
2. all it requires to claim status as a “scientist” is an undergraduate degree in some science major
3. By that definition, the number of people who fit the definition runs to several million, a fact fully consistent with the overwhelming consensus in the expert climate science community who accept AGW as wrong
4. It contains the names of many fakes, including the Spice Girls and more than one family pet.
5. The Nobel Prize winners who signed it are none of them climate experts .
6. Having a PhD does not bestow one with magical all-knowing powers. Very few of the PhDs on the list have the appropriate scientific expertise.

The Oregon Petition has become a running joke.

Climate scientists receive funding to study the climate, not to argue yay or nay on AGW. AGW is basically taken as a given in the expert community.

Charles – I am curious to where you get the idea that you can proclaim one act for water? The heat exchange mechanism is so complex that I am rather put out that you proclaim only a single mechanism and one that is the most minor of them all.

At low altitudes water can condense into low altitude liquid phase and even lower as fog and depending on many things can either trap in heat or cause frost which warms the lower atmosphere.

At middle altitudes water can appear a gaseous, liquid or ice particles and in all cases it would have a different effect on the atmosphere. At high altitudes it is usually pushed there by heavy storm action and it can be either liquid or ice and usually reflects the sun’s energy in very large percentages.

Perhaps you’d like to explain why the upper stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause?

Passing crap around as if the atmosphere was some simple one-word easy to understand thing is pretty juvenile.

And as ANY IR astronomer will tell you, water is the ONLY significant GHG.

95% + of greenhouse effect is H2O, water, invisible as vapour, or visible as clouds etc. Less than 4% of greenhouse effect is CO2, Carbon Dioxide.
Of the CO2 in the atmosphere 95% + is generated by nature. Less than 4% is generated by Man.

What you warmunista bedwetters plan to do?
Slaughter all the animals?
Or the humans? As if I need ask. Communist/Fascist crapheads always love to slaughter millions of people, all for the good of the people, of course.

John – these days the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming refer to the murdering of millions – of forbidding the uses of fuel to Africa, India and large parts of the minority world as “Ethical Depopulation”.

Do you have this? The outright murder is bad but murder by proxy is really really good. Margaret Sanger said everything that the white liberals have ALWAYS believed:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
— Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/

It is easy because so many of my Science professors said so. If you remove all the water and retain the same atmospheric pressure at sea level. You would see 300 degree temp changes each day. Most likely would be more extreme. I am sorry you still go to the church of CHG. Water is not a CHG even as clouds. What you mistake as a CHG effect at night is in reality a transitory blanket effect.

What is CHG? I assume that is a typo? You are telling us the heat exchange mechanism for atmospheric H2O which is identical to that of the touted greenhouse gases. Or don’t you understand that temperature stabilization is really what is occurring?

The mass of the Earth absorbs the rather small amount of energy that strikes the Earth and makes it to the surface. That energy warms the surface only so much. You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to predict the temperature from the emitted IR or visa versa. While you cannot be absolutely accurate without a coefficient of emission, it is so close to one that it can be safely ignored. This law was really designed to measure the temperature of a star.

All of the “energy balance” drawings from NASA show 100% of the energy that falls upon the Earth as being emitted in one manner or another. But we have coal and oil deposits that prove that it is not 100%. While the energy retained must be pretty small it is not 100% emission. And so it should not be presented as such.

You and I agree on the actions of water in the atmosphere but please do not invoke the authority of some unknown “professors”. It is plain that you are contradicting me in nothing more than a reworded identical process.

I would hesitate to call it greenhouse effect. This represents H2O converting radiated energy into conductive energy. Since radiation occurs at the speed of light while conduction occurs at the speed of molecular motion you can see why the lower atmosphere is warmer than the tropopause. This entire subject is really screwed up because of the words “greenhouse” and the fact that people have no idea how a greenhouse works.

The Greenhouse Effect
“Instead, parts of our atmosphere act as an insulating blanket of just the right thickness, trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a pleasant range. The Martian blanket is too thin, and the Venusian blanket is way too thick! The ‘blanket’ here is a collection of atmospheric gases called ‘greenhouse gases’ based on the idea that the gases also ‘trap’ heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse do.”http://eo.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
“Heat-trapping gases, in balanced proportions, act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping temperatures within a range that enables life to thrive on a planet with liquid water.

Unfortunately, these gases—especially CO2—are accumulating in the atmosphere at increasing concentrations due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel in cars and power plants industrial processes, and the clearing of forests for agriculture or development.

I correctly explained how the warming in the troposphere has to do with CONDUCTION and not radiation. Since the CO2 has slightly more conduction of heat than other gases in fact CO2 is a coolant. Your simile is incorrect. Greenhouses work by blocking OFF conduction and not by acting as a blanket. If you open the door of a greenhouse and let air circulate they became the same temperature inside and out.

When you DON’T understand what is being said you should either learn or remain silent. Instead your operation is to spew stupidity.

Yes, my FIRST CHOICE when looking for science information is to head to the comment section of a climate science denialist blog. ( /s, just in case)

The simile works. It is a simile, not the 14 thlecture of a 400 level physics course. That’s why one of te sources is a childrens’site

And the only people I’ve run across who want to argue that the simile is a way to disprove the hypothesis are pretend experts on those comment sections.

Thanks for continuing to display how a lack of a modicum of critical thinking lead you to your conclusions.

C.R.A.A.P. TEST

Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

The hilarious part about your list of institutions all seem to refuse to answer questions on their positions. If you can’t answer questions then your theory is not very sound. Ergo it is most likely propaganda to create an entire class of taxation.

C.T., that you start your query with namecalling/insulting is indicative.

If you really, honestly think there is room for debating basic physics & chemistry behind nearly two centuries of research, please go attend a class at your local community college.

Or, if you want to continue entertaining readers hrre, walk us through why you think it is necessary to argue these fundemental points.

The world – minus a vanishingly small coterie of pd for denialist blogs and current administration – has moved well past that and is discussing, developing, and putting into action, military, public, and corp. policy to mitigate and adapt to the ecologic effects we are responsible for.

Before I can bring forth my evidence. I need to find out what you know. It appears you either don’t know much or are afraid of sharing what you know about Climate Change.
Let’s start off with my original question. How does CO2 retain so much heat energy that as a trace gas it can increase global temp? None of you useful fools seem to handle answer this basic question on AGW.

That you think a comment thread is a venue to argue basic physics…..
Here, educate yourself. Then realize no one is really arguing the science; instead, we – virtually every country, state, county, city -are developing policies in reaction to what we are doing to our ecosystem.

“The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/…

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

Yup. Absolutely correct. Go learn science in a science class. That you think there is any actual debate on the basic chemistry and physics only points to a diehard opinion that you don’t want to be considered responsible for your actions.

Now. If you want to discuss Capitalism, religious idiocy, nationalism, and general human disregard having gotten us here and what the best efforts to adapt, mitigate, there is plenty of space on this opinion site.

No scientist can be expected to give an accurate assessment if he is being handed bad data no matter how honest he is. And as I showed above – NASA has been changing raw data in a manner that mathematicians says is impossible. What’s more, you NEVER change raw data. You publish another chart with any corrections you feel necessary with complete explanations of what and why corrections were made.

They actually have done this with the sea level changes. And they killed all of their veracity with that.

By direct measurement at most sites since the civil war sea levels have been measured. This is very difficult in the best of times but they were showing sea level rises of a single mm per year. Suddenly in 1980 they claimed that sea levels were changing at 2 mm per year.

When examined we discovered that NASA was claiming that the core of the Earth was shrinking at 1 mm per year and so the sea level would have to be increasing at 2 mm per year to show 1 mm per year sea level increases.

Uhh, that shrinkage has NEVER been measured. It is a wild-assed guess that comes from the fact that although we are gaining star-dust at a rate of 40,000 tonnes per year, we are losing 50,000 tonnes of hydrogen and helium each year as it floats off into outer space because Earth’s gravity field is too light to hold it against the solar wind.

Ummm, I posted that to you….
And your answers hold little to no weight without substantive supporting resources. That was the point.

You claim, with no evidence, to have expertise. I point to actual, real people and institutions who have demonstrated their expertise.
And have pointed out the world has accepted that expertise and act based on that understanding.

Firstly, I have cited the source of that study many times. Second, what sort of ass uses suggestions on how to write social science papers about mathematics? You do not REFERENCE anything but your source of data and statistical analysis does not require references.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

What do you find unreliable about a paper that was reviewed by the manager of the EPA, a NASA consultant, a Fulbright scholar, an Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, a member of the IPCC, a PhD scholar in physics from MIT and the Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee?

Or perhaps you object to the fact that the paper was written by a psychiatrist, an econometrician and a meteorologist despite the fact that understanding the acts of people like you who insist you know what you’re talking about when you haven’t the slightest training requires an understanding of the mental states that would lead you to continue arguing about these things?

The science says what the sciences say. That you think your incredulity implies the science is wrong only points to your inability or unwillingness to understand what that nearly two hundred years of research says.

If you had a science source supporting your talking point virtually copy/pasted from paid for from denialist blogs, we’d see it

Instead, we get your claim that no efforts to explain the science are available to you.

Here are some additional learning opportunities:

“The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/…

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

WOW you know how to copy and paste. A lot words but mostly it is a contrivance. It is still only a trace gas at 400 ppm. How does it retain so much heat? Can you answer that without a link or a copy and paste?

Well nearly a dozen resources show that your efforts to argue basic physics is a ludicrous position to cling to in an effort to not accept what the world -minus a few denialist blogs- knows and has taken responsibility for our behavior to heart by developing military, public, and corp. policy and plans to mitigate and adapt to our changing ecosystem.

You are not arguing basic physics. None of your comments have shown you understand basic physics. Again let me repeat – looking for something that will back your position and then using that as some sort of reference is not science. It is nothing more than bias. I have designed and programmed spectrometers and gas analyzers. I can tell you unequivocally that increasing CO2 would make no difference because all of the energy in those absorption bands is already saturated at perhaps 250 ppm or so. What’s more, plant growth is seriously affect by CO2 that low. Photosynthesis ceases at 180 ppm and the increase in CO2 is feeding the world.

“…plant growth is seriously affect by CO2 that low. ”
Interesting given how ~280, what we’ve had from the beginning of agriculture, has allowed farm and forest to flourish for so many centuries.

Again. There is -other than a few Internet comments – no one arguing that the basic physics is wrong.
Indeed, the world has understood the basics, understood the science is solid, and have developed, researched, and put into action policies based on that acceptance of the xcience and our effects on our environment.

All you are doing is showing how you are unwilling to take responsibility for your actions.

Tell me how you know what CO2 levels were 12,000 years ago which is approximately the start of real agriculture? If you read: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html you will discover that over the last 15,000 years that CO2 level has averaged about 310 ppm but with some wild swings that show ticks as high as 340 ppm. This is as much as 25% more than the ice core research shows.

You are rather comical trying to use popularity of an idea as proof of its accuracy.

Wow, a whole body of research easily available at scholar . google and you found….
geocraft

So, what you’ve demonstrated is
1-that your incredulity does not mean you are right
2 – a lack of intellectual curiosity, rigor, and critical thinking skills
3- a source that agrees with your conclusion is worth more to you than what basic research skills would have rendered.

Background: Unprecedented Rise of CO2

“Over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been generally low and fluctuated predictably within a window of 200 to 300 ppm. This, the researchers explain, has sustained the current icehouse – a time marked by continental ice at the polar regions – under which humans have evolved. This trend has been abruptly interrupted by the pronounced rise of carbon dioxide over the past 100 years to the current level of 401 ppm—one not seen on Earth for at least the past 3.5 million years.”https://phys.org/news/2016-10-ancient-co2-future-climate.html

But of course if you were bright enough to actually research anything you’re find a technique called “Geocarb” which uses geological rock degradation from CO2 to estimate CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These show CO2 levels to be even higher than the stomata research.

This shows among other things that there was a very low CO2 levels directly following the Maunder Minimum. The colder the oceans the less outgasing of CO2 and the more it absorbs. As the oceans warm they outgas CO2. It takes a VERY long time to warm 300 million cubic miles of seawater. But I’m sure you’re not interested in that.

Your interests lie in using an ignorant term like “denialist”. The proof positive that you haven’t a clue what is going on around you.

Robert, I should have known that you get your information from “climatekids”. The description of how a greenhouse works is incorrect.

And if CO2 acted like the roof of a greenhouse the upper atmosphere would be warm and it is not. “In mathematical speak that is 9.8°C per 1,000 meters. However, if you’re in a cloud, or it is snowing/raining, the temperature decreases by about 3.3°F for every 1,000 feet up you go in elevation. Thus meaning it’s a change of 6°C per 1,0000 meters”

Please don’t look around to find anything that can support your view and then use that as some sort of accurate reference.

NASA has been changing their temperature data. You should NEVER change your actual measure data but make new charts that explain what corrections you’ve made and why.

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”

Sorry you think the nearly dozen resources can be exemplified by a single source. That transparent use of a logical, fallacy points out just how empty your efforts are in trying to argue basic, foundational research of the past nearly two centuies.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world has taken science and learned from it. And have accepted our responsibility of working within the ecological system that allowed us to flourish.

And have taken the effort to resesrch, develop, and put into action public and corp. plans to mitigate and adapt to what we’ve done.

What I think is that your entire line of thought is exemplified with the label “Climatekids”. Look, I don’t like to insult you but you don’t understand science and physics. You are stuck in the era of Obama when “97% of all scientists believe in man-made global warming”.

No one that has ever worked in science could EVER believe that 97% of all scientists could agree on anything including whether chickens lay eggs. Who was part of the 97% that NASA quoted? The American Medical Association! Now there is some group that could be expected to know climatology. And the Boy Scouts of America.

This is an unlimited amount of information out there that shows that there has been warming between 1898 and 1940, but thanks to NASA fiddling with the data we can’t really tell if there has actually been any warming since then. And the most we look into it the more questions arise.

Some dumbass study looked into the dilatory effects of higher levels of CO2 on the plants. They discovered that the higher levels of CO2 cause reductions in protein, zinc and vitamin A production in plants. What they fail to say is that greenhouses normally run 550 ppm NOW. Or that this can easily be countered by using different types of plant food as most farmers do.

If you want to believe that you world is coming to an end then perhaps you ought to sell everything you have and go see the hot spots in Europe. Go see the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. See the pyramids in Egypt. Make the most of your short time on Earth because men are destroying the planet right? I watched so many people kill themselves with drugs because, “like dude, there’s no future here” that I can’t count them. The Flower generation was as stupid as the Millennials.

Yet we have multiple studies, multiple databases, multiple methodologies all pointing to similar conclusions.
And, as far as I’ve seen, a paper by Lord Monkton and a bunch of comment thread, and some denialist blog posts saying they’re wrong.

I’ll go with reputable, repeatable research over incredulity
“No one that has ever worked in science could EVER believe that 97% of all scientists could agree on anything including whether chickens lay eggs. “

That’s an opinion piece in the John Birch Society newsletter, and, of course, it grossly distorts the facts. Congress didn’t catch NOAA manufacturing anything. Despite the noise in political opinion outlets like Newamerican, Dr. Bates doesn’t actually fault the scientific work Karl and his team did. Bates had designed a new validation and archiving system for NOAA, and it wasn’t ready in time for Karl’s project to use it. So Karl decided early in the project to keep using the system already in production. Bates wanted him to delay his project so it could use his new system and Karl refused. All of his complaints about Karl’s operation boil down to that dispute.

Apparently you’re one of those people to who “John Birch” has some negative meaning. Have you ever read anything published by them or are you simply the run-of-the-mill hack who follows the social media where someone said something negative about them and so you feel compelled to follow them?

The use of the word “denialist” fits you perfectly. Anyone that uses that term simply is an incompetent boob. Since you don’t know anything about science you even have to invent a word for those who do!

denialist
NOUN
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

‘the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists’
as modifier ‘the denialist view’
More example sentences
‘To the skeptics’ discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists.’
‘So far the pattern is for the emails to look a lot less suspicious once they’re put into context, and for the denialists to oversell what they’ve found.’
‘Since the denialists are denying, drastic measures are required.’
‘While the greenhouse denialists reject such scenarios outright, more hard-headed ruling-class planners take them more seriously.’
‘It is probably true that The Day After Tomorrow’s special effects-driven excesses have given the greenhouse denialists a propaganda free kick.’
‘Those who did speak up were “bludgeoned quite strongly” and labelled denialists.’
‘He hints darkly that, though some ‘denialists’ are ‘not evil’, others ‘cross the line between what could arguably be protected free speech’.’
‘Then there’s the well-funded greenhouse denialist think-tanks on the lookout for any evidence, argument or anecdote that might raise public doubts – legitimate or otherwise – about the growing strength of the scientific consensus.’
‘And just, by the by, you are about the third or fourth left-winger I have seen on the net saying that the dissidents “are more properly termed denialists”.’
‘Thank you for Talbot’s excellent series of articles debunking the myths propagated by the AIDS denialists.’
‘The HIV denialists do not all belong in one category.’
‘But denialists have never been interested in understanding the science, after all, if they understood it, they could not be in denial anymore.’
‘They are the problem, and they need to acknowledge that fact and start cleaning up their own mess rather than spouting denialist rhetoric.’
‘Until recently, AIDS researchers and activists in the United States tended to regard the denialists with derision, assuming they would fade away.’
‘He came under the influence of a group of maverick scientists known as Aids denialists.’
‘The denialist position within the government has put the fear of God into the medical establishment, who will do nothing to counter it.’
‘But many in the medical establishment say the sacking of her deputy is evidence that he remains an “Aids denialist” who questions the link between HIV and the disease.’
‘The denialist side was actively subverting the peer review process.’
‘We need to recognise that the denialist movement is a true grass-roots phenomenon, though this does not make it any less reactionary.’

You are really a hoot. There is also dictionary definitions of Maui Wowie and Acapulco Gold. This does not mean that it wasn’t an invented term by people like you for those who know what they’re talking about.

Yet you aren’t capable of understanding a paper written mathematically proving that NASA and NOAA manufactured data to prove what the environmentalists wanted proven. You’re showing yourself less capable by the second.

You simply cannot keep yourself from exposing your total ignorance of science. 99% of all studies are never published in public literature. The AAAS would publish a very small amount. Where do you suppose the rest would be published?
In extremely low distribution specialty publications like “American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology” or “American Journal of Immunology”. But you have my permission to continue with your supreme stupidity.

If you don’t know how and why a greenhouse works why don’t you look it up and then look at the stupid explanation Mann makes in his paper? Exactly why do you post if you are incapable of looking things up beyond Climatekids?

I do not offer “quotes” to someone that can’t understand them. I do not need to cite anything since your jackass idea that there is ANY analogy between a greenhouse and the way CO2 is supposed to act is totally incorrect.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is acting on what the observations, models, theory all agree on.

Here is a compilation of resources discussing what a complete analysis of the body of literature says. I’ll stick with reputable research, not what some anonymous Internet commenter wants to argue about whether greenhouse is an analogy or not..

“The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5

Agreed. I think of the greenhouse effect as a probable nett cooling effect: daytime solar insolation warms Earth, especially at or near equator, mostly oceans. This evaporates water as vapour which rises & forms clouds, which reflect back to space the Sun’s radiation. Nightime these clouds reflect Earth’s heat,which is trying to escape to space, back down to Earth.

This keeps the Tropics temperate both day & night, while deserts at temperate latitudes will boil daytime & freeze nightime.
As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is negligible, especially over 400 ppmv, where we are now.